Appeal No. 2004-1944 Page 6
Application No. 09/255,673
“the myriad examples of the ‘features’” that are furnished in the
specification does not prove that the claim language is not
reasonably definite or that the claimed subject matter is not
directed to what applicant regards as the invention.
Consequently, we will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, on this record.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), it is basic that
all limitations recited in a claim must be considered and given
appropriate effect in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-
63, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974). Here, all of the so rejected
appealed claims are drawn to a method wherein a sample of
biological fluid is deposited in a chamber and quiescently
resides therein during subsequent testing.
Appellant maintains that Merkh describes a method wherein a
biological fluid sample is not quiescently retained in a chamber
during analysis. In support, appellant (brief, pages 13-15)
refers to passages in the Exemplary Mode Of Operation section of
the applied Merkh patent for showing that Merkh programs a
carousel drive interface to provide agitation of containers
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007