Ex Parte RUSSELL et al - Page 5



            Appeal No. 1999-1397                                                          Page 5              
            Application No. 08/303,924                                                                        
            cells for differentiation purposes, and the sizes of such microspheres are clearly outside        
            the range recited by the claims on appeal.@  Appellants acknowledge that Aa general               
            statement is made that the particles (microspheres) could have a size range of >1/10 to           
            ten times= that of the particles to be measured@ (Id.), but point to the two embodiments          
            described in the reference as evidence that it would not have been obvious from                   
            Kortright=s description that the microspheres should be smaller than the cells, much              
            less that they should have diameters in the range of 0.65 to 3.0 microns.  Specifically,          
            A[i]n [Suzuki=s] first embodiment, latex particles of 19.8 and 44.1 microns are used, . . .       
            and it is stated that particles having a size larger than the size of blood cells are             
            >preferable=,@ while in Suzuki=s Asecond embodiment . . . the latex particles                     
            (microspheres) are 0.33 microns in size . . . significantly smaller than those recited by         
            the claim on appeal.@  Id.                                                                        
                   Nor are we persuaded by the examiner=s argument that the specification teaches             
            that Aother types and sizes of microspheres . . . may be utilized in the method of the            
            instant invention,@ thus, appellants Afail[ ] to provide support for the criticality of the       
            argued parameters.@  Examiner=s Answer, page 7.  The flaw in this reasoning is that it            
            puts the cart before the horse, effectively negating an explicit limitation in the claims         
            based solely on appellants= disclosure, rather than the teachings of the prior art.  The          
            criticality of a limitation is immaterial if there is nothing in the prior art to suggest it in the
            first place.                                                                                      
                   The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness rests on the            
            examiner.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.                    
            1992).  The rejection of claims 129-132 and 134-140 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 is reversed             
            because the examiner has not established that all of limitations of the claims on appeal          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007