Appeal No. 2004-1065
Application No. 09/883,804
Appellant argues that because Litt discloses that plate 10
has a base 12 from which is supported a matrix-like array of
wells 14 (column 2, lines 49-51), that Litt does not suggest a
single-piece unitary body. Brief, page 4. We are not convinced
by appellant’s argument here. It is not evident how a plate 10
having a base 12 that supports wells cannot be a single-piece
unitary structure. The examiner’s point, that the disclosed
“multi-well member” suggests a single-piece unitary body, is
more convincing to us since the noun “member” is singular in
form.
Therefore, we conclude that we agree with the examiner’s
position that Litt does suggest a single-piece unitary body.
In the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the brief,
appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine Litt and
Cooke due to the requirement that Litt’s structure has to be
substantially planar in shape in order to be integrated with the
visualization detector. Appellant argues that by changing the
bottom design of the wells, the visualization pattern will not
operate according to its intended purpose. Appellant argues
that incorporation of the conical bottom feature of Cooke into
the apparatus of Litt would render the apparatus of Litt
unsatisfactory for its intended purposes. Brief, page 5.
On page 7 of the answer, the examiner correctly points out
that Litt teaches two different shapes for the well bottoms,
both planar or curved. See column 2, lines 52-54. Hence, we
agree with the examiner’s statement that “this clearly shows
that the shape of the closed bottom is not critical of the
functioning of the plate” of Litt. Answer, page 7.
Beginning on page 6 of the brief, appellant argues that
Thorne asserts that the wells are removable from the tray recess
2. Appellant also argues that Thorne does not disclose a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007