Appeal No. 2001-0246
Application No. 08/921,103
either in the references themselves or in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”) and In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446-47 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (“[W]e must look at the obviousness issue through
the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art and what one would
be presumed to know with that background.”). The motivation,
suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in
the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to be solved.
See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
Based on these well-settled principles, we disagree with
Appellants’ assertion that Europe’s reference fluid does not
flow unless the bridge is to be purged of air bubbles. In
particular, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ assertion that in
a constrained junction, because the physical barrier prevents
bulk fluid flow, fresh reference fluid does not need to be
flowed (brief, page 18). In that regard, we agree with the
Examiner that the reference fluid of Europe flows into and out
of chamber 21 as indicated by the description of the embodiments
depicted in Figures 2 and 4 (col. 3, lines 6-11 and col. 4,
lines 26-33). Europe further teaches that trapping air bubbles
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007