Appeal No. 2005-0510
Application No. 09/883,435
ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellants’ invention to
use well known geometric forms for the reaction chamber.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of appellants’
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence
weighs in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section
103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-3, 6-10, 12-24, 30-35, 53 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kim.
Appellants argue that nothing in Kim suggests another reaction
area formed by a recess above the reservoir as recited in claims 36
and further limited in claim 27 (Brief, page 13; Reply Brief, page
2). The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art “to include a top part or lid with a
reaction area (see col. 2 lines 63 and col. 3 lines 1-5) since Kim
discloses such.” Answer, page 4. The examiner finds that Kim
discloses “a lid (i.e., a cover slip) with a reaction area (see
col. 2 lines 63 and col. 3 lines 1-5).” Answer, page 5.
We agree with the examiner’s findings but note that all of the
claimed limitations have not been disclosed or suggested by these
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007