Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
However, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 11 through 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, since independent claims 11 and 13, and claims 12, 14,
15 and 19 which depend therefrom, do not include the negative
limitation discussed above, and the examiner has expressed no
other basis for rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
Nor will we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 16,
18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on the
assertion of new matter therein set forth on page 4 of the
answer. In this instance, we agree with appellants that a
collective consideration of drawing Figures 1 and 3 of the
application provide a reasonable basis for the recitation in
claims 16, 18 and 20 that a base portion of each reaction vessel
(3) may be held by the adapter “substantially at the level of the
recess” (5a), i.e., wherein the bottom of the reaction vessel is
located outside the periphery of the recess (5a) but at a level
within the vertical extent of the recess. However, as noted
supra, claim 18 depends from claim 1 and as a result thereof will
fall with claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007