Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
we find that the sample/matrix coating disclosed in Hillenkamp I also anticipates the
coating recited in claim 36 (as well as the MALDI matrix of claim 37).
B. Claims 30-33, 36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fodor.
We find that Fodor discloses a sample holder wherein one surface of the
substrate5 comprises “raised regions, etched trenches or the like” in order “to physically
separate synthesis regions for different polymers.” Fodor, col. 7, lines 53-58; see also,
col. 11, lines 40-44. We further find that a sample holder having raised regions from a
surface manifestly has a recessed area between them (a sump). We still further find
that Fodor does not teach that the raised regions of the sample holder are removable.
Thus, it reasonably appears that Fodor discloses sample holder having a multiplicity of
islands wherein the islands are non-removably connected to each other through a
substrate. In addition, we find that Fodor discloses that the raised regions, or islands,
comprise a sample support surface or “predefined region” on which a variety of
polymers are said to be synthesized. See, e.g., col. 1, lines 29-34; col. 3, lines 5-6;
col. 4, lines 9-12; col. 8, lines 5-11 and lines 21-23. We still further find that Fodor
discloses that recessed areas between the raised regions, or islands, of the sample
holder physically separate the sample support surfaces in order to inhibit transport
5 Fodor defines “substrate” as “[a] material having a rigid or semi-rigid surface.”
Fodor, col. 7, lines 52-53.
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007