Appeal No. 2001-2031
Application No. 09/071,825
dielectrophoresis force.” Without evidence that Bakhoum clearly
employs the dielectrophoresis force in some manner to detect or
locate a target inanimate entity, as claimed, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as no
anticipation has been shown.
With regard to claims 1-7, 14 and 15, the examiner rejects
these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 because, while the examiner
admits that the reference does not specifically disclose the
material of the housing, it would have been obvious to employ
plastic or similar material for the housing of Bakhoum “for
avoiding any affection of the inaccuracy of the electrostatic
sensor” [answer-page 6].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. 103. Each of these claims, like claims 8 and 13,
requires the use of a reaction of a dielectrophoresis force
which, for the reasons supra, is not disclosed or suggested by
Bakhoum. Moreover, independent claims 1 and 7 are apparatus
claims which require a detector housing wherein that housing has
a reference material chamber. While claim 7 does not refer to
the use of that material, claim 1 does recite that the reference
material is specifically chosen based on the target inanimate
entity and that an antenna, in accordance with the reference
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007