Appeal No. 2005-0510
Application No. 09/883,435
findings from Kim. The examiner has found that Kim discloses a lid
or cover slip (i.e., cover slip 50; see Figures 4-5) that includes
an area where a drop of solvent containing at least one dissolved
substance to be crystallized is placed, thus forming a “reaction
area” (col. 2, ll. 64-66). However, claims 36 and 27 include the
limitation that the at least one reaction area in the vessel top
part is “formed by a recess above the reservoir” (e.g., see claim
36). The examiner has not addressed this limitation, which has
been specifically argued by appellants (Brief, page 13; Reply
Brief, page 2). Therefore the examiner has not advanced any
reasoning, on this record, why a recess in the cover slip to form a
reaction area would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
this art at the time of appellants’ invention. To the contrary,
the evidence of record suggests the opposite conclusion, since Kim
discloses that the drop of dissolved substance to be crystallized
is placed on the cover slip which is then “located over the central
reservoir so that the drop of solvent is suspended from the
coverslip and hangs down into the central reservoir” (sentence
bridging cols. 2-3, emphasis added). Since Kim desires the drop to
be suspended so that it hangs down into the reservoir, there would
appear to be no suggestion, teaching or incentive to form a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007