Appeal No. 2001-0103
Application 08/763,465
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner has not satisfactorily explained how the
slots are present, we cannot sustain this rejection.2
The Rejection of Claims 1-14, 17-18, 22-23, and 25-38 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
Unpatentable over Heller
The Examiner states that Heller teaches a microfabricated device for reaction
and analysis, such as PCR, having a sleeve reaction chamber (Figure 9) having a fluid
containment system portion (136) with a viewing window (138) and inlet port (137)
disposed over a reactive chip. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 3-6). The Examiner
thus concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the fluid entry port (137) as a
slot to provide fluid communication (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 16-19).
The Appellant questions where in Heller is found a sleeve reaction chamber
including a slot, and states that there is no suggestion that vessel 136 constitutes a
sleeve reaction chamber. (Appeal Brief, page 15, lines 9-14). The Examiner states in
reply that Heller teaches in Figure 9 a generally rectangular reaction volume bounded
on the sides, top, and bottom with the exception of inlet and/or outlet ports. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 11, lines 10-14).
Federal Circuit precedent provides us with guidance with respect to the
construction of claims undergoing examination. See Burlington Industries v. Quigg, 822
F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims undergoing
examination are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
2 We note that Pace discusses a filling of reservoirs 14 and 16 utilizing an access hole for injection
(column 8, lines 67-68). See the “Other Issues” section of this Opinion.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007