Appeal No. 2005-1426 Page 2
Application No. 09/985,050
The appellants' invention relates to an apparatus and method for separating
components of blood (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Mulzet 4,708,712 Nov. 24, 1987
Borchardt et al. (Borchardt) 5,858,251 Jan. 12, 1999
Hlavinka 6,053,856 Apr. 25, 2000
The rejections
Claims 23 to 31 and 32 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mulzet in view of Borchardt.
Claims 23 and 31 to 34 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26, 28 and 31 of
Hlavinka in view of Borchardt.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed January 15, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed October 22, 2003) and reply brief (filed March 15, 2004)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007