Appeal No. 2006-0227 Page 14
Application No. 10/121,264
The device also comprises a matrix; i.e., “a material that includes transfer agent
spaces.” The tray onto which the microscope slide is fitted includes transfer agent
spaces, and therefore the tray (or more properly, perhaps, the material the tray is made
of) meets the definition of a matrix.
Finally, the device comprises a substrate that comprises all of the above
elements. The specification defines a substrate as “an object onto which genetic
material may be deposited.” The assembled device shown in Chu’s Figure 16B
includes all of the above elements and can have genetic material deposited on it
(specifically, probes can be deposited on the tray part of the device and chromosomal
DNA controls can be deposited on the microscope slide; see Chu at col. 33, lines 18-20
and lines 46-67).
As with the rejection of claim 40, Appellants argue that Chu’s slide is not a
transfer agent layer as defined in the instant specification. See the Appeal Brief, page
26. We have already addressed this argument. Supra, page 10.
We find that Chu discloses a device meeting all the limitations of claim 23. We
therefore affirm the examiner’s rejection based on obviousness in view of Chu and
Sabatini: “[A]nticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck &
Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Appellants have not
separately argued claims 25-28 and 31-34. Therefore, those claims fall with claim 23.
See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We affirm the rejection of claims 23, 25-28, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Chu and Sabatini. Our reasoning, however, differs from that of the
examiner. Therefore, we will designate our affirmance a new ground of rejection in
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007