Appeal No. 2005-2077
Application No. 10/046,564
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that Henderson does not recognize the advantages
that are achieved by including an internal pumping system. This argument is not
persuasive. The invention of Henderson recognizes the need to transport liquid test
samples through the apparatus. (column 8, lines 35-45).
Appellants argue that the Miyazaki does not disclose the use of fluid evaporation to
cause the flow through a transfer channel. (Brief, pages 7 and 9). Appellants’ argument is
not persuasive. Miyazaki discloses (columns 3 and 4) evaporation propelled fluid transport
system and techniques. This system includes flowing a liquid through a flow path (1) that
is equivalent to the argued transport channel.
Appellants argue the cited references fail to teach the claimed structure for causing
the flow of fluid through a transport channel by means of an evaporator. (Brief, pages 11-
12). Appellants also argue that even if the references were combined they fail to teach the
subject matter of claim 1. (Brief, page 12).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The systems of both Miyazaki and
Henderson describe the transporting of fluid from an inlet system through a transport
channel and to an outlet port. While Henderson discloses the use of a pump, Miyazaki
describes a pumping mechanism that relies on the gasifying (evaporating) the liquid for
transport through the system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that the pumping mechanism described by Miyazaki would also have been
suitable for transporting a liquid through the system of Henderson. “For obviousness under
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007