Ex Parte Schleifer et al - Page 7



                Appeal No. 2006-0103                                                                                 Page 7                    
                Application No. 10/172,892                                                                                                     

                         Appellants argue that the claim language “defines the structure of the ‘form-in-                                      
                place gasket’ relative to the other features of the assay chamber.  It should also be noted                                    
                that the inherent meaning of the words of the limitation ‘form-in-place gasket’ . . . define                                   
                the dimensions of the gasket as a gasket that is formed where the gasket material is                                           
                placed.  In addition, the ‘form-in-place gasket’ is formed on a surface and a fluid tight                                      
                seal is formed upon curing . . . of the gasket material.  The ‘form-in-place gasket’                                           
                includes an additional inherent physical characteristic that the prior art does not include.”                                  
                Appeal Brief, pages 22-23.                                                                                                     
                         We do not find this argument persuasive.  It is true that the claims define the form-                                 
                in-place gasket as located between the substrate and the cover, but that limitation is met                                     
                by Chen.  Chen also discloses a gasket “that is formed where the gasket material is                                            
                placed” and that forms a fluid-tight seal.  See, e.g., page 11, paragraph [0158] (the                                          
                “gasket layer may be attached . . . [by] lamination, injection molding[,] gluing or any other                                  
                means”).  Thus, we do not agree with Appellants’ position that the form-in-place gasket                                        
                limitation includes any physical characteristic not possessed by Chen’s gasket.                                                
                         Appellants also argue that, according to the definition in the specification, a “form-                                
                in-place gasket” is defined by structural characteristics, and is therefore not a product-by-                                  
                process limitation.  Appeal Brief, page 23.  See also page 24:                                                                 
                         [T]he specification states that the “form-in-place gasket” has a                                                      
                         predetermined configuration as defined by the surface on which the gasket                                             
                         material is disposed.  The specification elaborates on the meaning of                                                 
                         predetermined configuration . . . by stating that the “form-in-place gasket”                                          
                         will have a certain spatial conformation on the gasket surface and                                                    
                         dimensions, as well as structural features such as conduits, chamber,                                                 
                         mixing features, and the like.  Thus, the inherent meaning of “form-in-place                                          






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007