Appeal No. 2004-1065
Application No. 09/883,804
OPINION
For the reason set forth in answer, we affirm each of the
rejections. Our comments below are for emphasis only.
On page 4 of brief, appellant argues that the claimed
invention requires a “single-piece unitary body”, and Litt does
not suggest a single-piece unitary body. Hence, the issue is
whether the wells, 14a, 14b, 14c, and 14d, as depicted, for
example, in Figure 2 of Litt, are separate pieces of the
microtiter plate of Litt.
Firstly, we observe that appellant’s specification
indicates that the wells or tubes may be discrete elements
temporarily attached to a tray or plate, or preferably are
formed integrally with a plate. See page 5, lines 10-12.
Hence, it is possible that a “single-piece unitary body” means
multiple pieces that have been bonded together to form a unitary
piece, and does not necessarily mean a single-piece molded
structure, for example.
In response to appellant’s position identified above, the
examiner, on pages 5 and 6 of the answer, fully addresses
appellant’s arguments. We incorporate the examiner’s comments
as our own because we agree with the examiner’s conclusion that
Litt does suggest a single-piece unitary body.
The examiner correctly points out that Litt (column 1,
lines 65-67) characterizes the microtiter plate as “having a
plurality of wells therein”. The examiner also points out that
Litt teaches, at column 2, lines 32-36, that the microtiter
plate is a “multi-well member known as a microtiter plate.” The
noun “member” is singular in form, which suggests a single-piece
unitary body.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007