Appeal No. 2001-2031
Application No. 09/071,825
this reference as an anticipatory reference against claims 8 and
13. Yet, it is the examiner’s position that when Bakhoum detects
a polarization charge and an electric field moves the needle,
“the system also detects the polarization charge by the
manifested dielectrophoresis force since it is already existed
[sic] in the object in the nature [sic]” [answer-page 9]. Thus,
it appears that the examiner is taking the position that since
dielectrophoresis is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it must
exist in the disclosure of Bakhoum.
We are unpersuaded by the examiner’s rationale. While we
agree that the dielectrophoresis phenomenon is known, a fact
which appellant does not deny, the instant claimed subject matter
is directed to a method of employing that known phenomenon in
such a way as to detect a target inanimate entity. The methods
of instant claims 8 and 13 certainly appear broad in scope but
both require the detection of a target inanimate entity via the
detection of something (a polarization charge pattern in
accordance with a spatially non-uniform electric field pattern in
claim 8, and a maximum spatial gradient of an electric pattern
field in claim 13) in accordance with a dielectrophoresis force.
The examiner has declared, without any support, that the
electric force moving the needle in Bakhoum “is the same as the
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007