Appeal No. 2006-0484 Page 10
Application No. 09/657,729
. . . [A]lthough Weetall does not disclose that the protrusion is a cone shape (refers to
claim 11), the shape of the protrusion would be a choice of experimental design.
Appellant argues that “Claim 11 is separately patentable over the combination of
Weetall and Kotzan et al. since there is no teaching in either of a cone shaped
protrusion as claimed.” Appeal Brief, page 11.
We agree with Appellant that Weetall does not disclose the cone-shaped
protrusions required by claim 11. In fact, Weetall does not appear to disclose a plate
having protrusions (of any shape) that fit into the wells of a microplate. The examiner
pointed to Figure 2 of Weetall for a disclosure of “electrodes . . . contained on a plate
with protrusions that fit[ ] into the well.” Weetall’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:
The figure is said to show “a cross-sectional view of an electrode array.” Col. 2,
line 4. In more detail, the figure shows a sensor (10) with a well (14), having a working
electrode (22), a counter electrode (24), a reference electrode (26), a reagent pad (60),
and an array cover (30) that “can be located above the array and the pad to insure that
either any liquid reagents do not evaporate or any solid reagents do not sublimate.”
See col. 2, lines 24, 26, and 40-42; col. 3, lines 7 and 9-11.
Notably absent from the description of Figure 2 is any mention of electrodes
deposited on a plate having cone-shaped protrusions that fit into the wells of a plate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007