Appeal No. 2006-0227 Page 11
Application No. 10/121,264
Appellants argue that Chu’s microscope slide is not a transfer agent layer:
At best, the slide is a substrate. In fact, Appellants’ specification defines
the term “substrate” as “an object onto which genetic material may be
deposited. . . . [I]n certain embodiments, the substrate may be, but is not
limited to, a multiwell plate, a glass slide, a filter membrane. . . .”
Specification at page 16, paragraph [047] (emphasis added). Therefore,
the slide of Chu does not serve as a transfer agent layer.
Appeal Brief, page 22 (emphasis and alterations in original).
We disagree with Appellants’ proposed claim construction. The specification
defines a “transfer agent layer” as a “layer comprising” “a substance onto or into which
genetic material may be deposited, which can transport the genetic material when the
[substance] is moved.” A microscope slide is a layer of glass, and glass is a substance
onto which genetic material may be deposited, which can transport the genetic material
when the glass is moved. Therefore, a microscope slide is a “transfer agent layer”
when that term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. While it is true, as Appellants argue, that the specification states that a
glass slide can be a substrate in certain embodiments (Appeal Brief, page 22), that
does not mean that a microscope slide cannot also be a transfer agent layer in other
embodiments.
Appellants also argue that “the tray of Chu is not a substrate. . . . The
specification defines a substrate as ‘an object onto which genetic material may be
deposited. . . . The genetic material of Chu is . . . always directly adhered to the slide,
and is never deposited onto the tray. Thus, the tray of Chu is not a substrate as defined
by Appellants’ specification.” Appeal Brief, page 23 (emphasis in original).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007