Appeal No. 2003-1103 Page 4
Application No. 09/212,029
and a method of using the device to amplify a preselected polynucleotide in a
sample by conducting a polynucleotide polymerization reaction. See id., pages
3-4.
Specifically, the examiner found that Schnipelsky discloses a device that
includes:
an inlet port, flow channel, amplification reaction chamber, and
detection chamber, particularly depicted in Figure 1 and discussed
in detail in column 1, line 20, through column 20, line 31. The inlet
port and flow channel is [sic] described in column 10, lines 8-12.
Detection chamber practice with induced flow is specifically cited in
column 10, line 62, through column 11, line 47.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 3-4. Further, the examiner found that Schnipelsky
discloses at least one mesoscale dimension in column 11, lines 20-30. This
paragraph refers to the reaction compartment (number 26 in Figure 5) and states
that: “Even with layer 66 present, the thermal path length of compartment 26 is
no more than about 0.3 mm.” Schnipelsky, column 11, lines 20-30. A thermal
path length of “no more than 0.3 mm” is the same dimension as “no more than
300 µm.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. The examiner specifically noted that
compartment 26 in Figure 5 is the “interior liquid reaction chamber compartment
and not the layers of material which surround the compartment.” Id. Therefore,
the examiner concluded that “the reference does disclose mesoscale dimensions
which fall within the sizes of the instant claims.” Id., page 6.
Appellants do not dispute that Schnipelsky discloses most of the claim
limitations as recited by the examiner. Instead, Appellants’ argument focuses on
the specific size limitation of the flow channel and reaction chamber:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007