Ex Parte Johnson - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2005-0644                                                                          3               
              Application No. 09/804,522                                                                                    


                     Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,                          
              expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed                           
              invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited                          
              functional limitations.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,                      
              1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore                          
              and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.                           
              Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).                                                                
                     According to the examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4):                                                     
                             With regard to Claims 1, 2, and 6, Maekawa et al. discloses an LED                             
                     illumination source device for use in a flow particle detection device, such                           
                     as in a flow cytometer (See Figures 1, 3, 5, 6, 9; col. 3, line 56-col. 5, line                        
                     62), comprising an LED (See 16 in Figure 5; 29 in Figure 9; col. 5, lines 6-                           
                     13) for providing light at a selected wavelength, and an optical element                               
                     (See 30, 21 in Figure 9) for collecting nearly all of the light from the LED                           
                     and concentrating the collected light at a selected volume within a flow                               
                     sample stream.  Maekawa et al. additionally discloses the optical element                              
                     comprising a collecting element (See 30 in Figure 9) and a focusing                                    
                     element (See 21 in Figure 9).                                                                          
                     Appellant argues (brief, page 4) that:                                                                 
                     The single reference cited (U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,388 to Maekawa et al) by                               
                     the Examiner does not show, teach or suggest every element of the                                      
                     rejected claims, directly or inherently.  Specifically if [sic, it] does not show                      
                     “an optical element for collecting nearly all of the light from the LED . . .”                         
                     as is specified in each independent claim.                                                             
              Appellant additionally argues (brief, page 4) that an optical element spaced from a light                     
              source will collect nearly all of the light incident upon it; however, it will not “collect                   
              nearly all of the light from the light source” as required by the claims on appeal.                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007