Appeal No. 2005-2350
Application No. 10/056,352
integral bottom onto which is placed the coating, which is
plainly evident to the artisan as argued by the examiner in the
answer as well as from the following interpretations of the
reference. We also do not agree with appellants’ related
argument that even assuming for the sake of argument that carrier
part 6 may be fairly construed as a coating, it is submitted that
the carrier part is not deposited onto the bottom surface of the
tubular container 2.
There appears to us to be significant teachings not
appreciated fully by the examiner and appellants in construing
Wijnschenk’s patent. The first appears to be set forth in the
abstract; in column 1, line 59 thorugh column 2, line 30 as well
as the discussion at column 7, lines 5 through 21. These clearly
indicate that there are prior art test tubes onto which is placed
an opaque surface with/onto which is further placed machine
readable indicia causing the indicia to be placed within the
surface of the quoted material on the test tube by means of laser
burning.
The second major teaching in Wijnschenk appears to begin at
column 2, line 30 with respect to a separately attachable carrier
part 6. In contrast to what appears an integral carrier part
6 shown in figures 1 and 2a, Wijnschenk appears to have a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007