Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
plate but, rather, that they are wells which have been etched into said plate. See
Figure 1 and col. 3, line 66- col. 4, line 1. Clearly, this embodiment does not anticipate
the present invention.
With respect to whether the second embodiment (Figure 2 of Vestal) anticipates
the sample holder described in representative claim 30, we find, and the examiner
acknowledges, that the illustrated sample holder has removable pins. See, Figure 2
and col. 10, lines 61-64. Thus, we find that Vestal’s disclosure of sample holders
having wells or removable pins stands in stark contrast to the claimed sample holder
which comprises a multiplicity of non-removable islands which protrude from a substrate
and which are separated by a sump.
In view of the foregoing, we find that Vestal does not teach each and every
limitation set forth in independent claim 30. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745, 49
USPQ2d at 1950; Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d at 1360, 47
USPQ2d at 1522; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at 631, 2 USPQ2d at
1053; Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
at 1458, 221 USPQ at 485. Since claims 31 and 36 are dependent on claim 30 they,
therefore, contain the limitation that the islands of the sample holder must be non-
removable. Thus, the rejection is reversed with respect to these claims as well.
Accordingly, Rejection IV is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007