Appeal No. 2005-0510
Application No. 09/883,435
chamber, reaction areas and cover slips are generally circular
(Brief, pages 9-10). Appellants further argue that, even with
dividers 60 of Figures 6-7 of Kim, the reaction areas 32' do not
change position, nor does Kim suggest a common wall between
immediately adjacent reaction chambers 28' (Brief, page 10).
Appellants also argue that the reaction areas 32 of Kim define a
necessary distance between the reaction chambers 28 in each row,
which rows are again necessarily spaced from each other by the
amount of protrusion of the surrounding reaction areas, rather than
being “immediately adjacent” as claimed (Brief, pages 11-12).
Appellants argue that none of Kim’s variations suggests a common
wall demarcating “immediately adjacent” reaction chambers from each
other (Brief, page 11). Finally, appellants argue that claims 1
and 36 explicitly state that the reservoir and reaction areas are
inside the walled reaction chambers while Kim discloses the
reaction areas (drop chambers 32) are outside the walled reaction
chamber (reservoir 28).
It is well settled that, during ex parte prosecution, the
language of the claims is given the broadest reasonable meaning as
in its ordinary usage as it would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007