Appeal No. 2003-1489
Application No. 09/256,486
"[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion that imaging is performed
within Gavin regardless of the type of light source."5
Appellant also maintains that there is no disclosure in
Gavin regarding the known spatial location of the "feature"
(clot-promoting agent 28). However, appellant acknowledges that
Gavin discloses that agent 28 is located between the restricted
areas 42 and the drive apertures 35 of the conduits, and such
disclosure meets the claimed requirement of a feature located
within the chamber at a known spatial location. Also, inasmuch
as appellant's specification defines "feature" as including
physical and geometric characteristics of the chamber, Gavin's
disclosure of restricted area 42 meets the claimed requirement
for such feature.
We are also not persuaded by appellant's argument that
"[n]either Gavin nor Van Deusen disclose [sic, discloses] or
suggest [sic, suggests] a container having a chamber for
quiescently holding a biologic sample, wherein the sample can be
imaged within the chamber."6 Again, appellant has not refuted
the examiner's reasonable finding that the chambers of Gavin are
fully capable of quiescently holding a sample which can be
5 Page 12 of principal brief, last sentence.
6 Page 14 of principal brief, first paragraph.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007