Appeal No. 2006-0103 Page 8
Application No. 10/172,892
gasket” in conjunction with the other portions of claim 1 . . . as well as the
specification, define the structure of the “form-in-place gasket”.
We find this argument unpersuasive as well. Claim 1 is not limited to a process
carried out using an array having a gasket of any particular spatial conformation or
dimensions, nor does it require “structural features such as conduits, chamber, [or]
mixing features.” Neither the claim language nor the specification’s definition of a “form-
in-place gasket” require the features relied on by Appellants. Therefore, Chen
anticipates claim 1 whether or not it teaches such features.
With respect to claims 10 and 17, Appellants merely reiterate the same arguments
made with respect to claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the
examiner that the “form-in-place gasket” limitation does not distinguish the claimed
method from the method disclosed by Chen. The rejection of claims 1, 10, and 17 is
affirmed. Claims 2-9, 11-13, and 16 fall with claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007