Appeal No. 2006-1460
Application No. 10/033,315
that it occurs along the edge portions of Holl’s layers.
The appellants’ argument regarding independent method claim
31 corresponds to the claim 27 argument. It follows that this
argument is unpersuasive for reasons analogous to those set forth
immediately above.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the
Holl reference evinces a prima facie case of anticipation which
the appellants have failed to successfully rebut with argument or
evidence to the contrary. We hereby sustain, therefore, the
examiner’s Section 102 rejection of claims 1-6, 8-19 and 27-35 as
being anticipated by Holl.
THE SECTION 102 REJECTION BASED ON DUBROW
It is the appellants’ contention that the rejection under
consideration is improper because “[t]here is no express
disclosure in Dubrow . . . of operative components mounted aboard
any such device [i.e., a microfluidic substrate assembly of the
type defined by independent claim 1]” (brief, page 19). This is
not correct. The examiner has accurately explained in his
rebuttal to this contention (and the appellants have not
disagreed with this explanation) that Dubrow discloses a
microfluidic device having operative components such as an
electrical controller and electrodes mounted there aboard as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007