Appeal No. 2006-1460
Application No. 10/033,315
required by appealed claim 1. In addition, Dubrow discloses that
his microfluidic device contains reservoirs, and such reservoirs
also satisfy the operative component requirement of claim 1. In
these respects, see the first full paragraph in column 12 and the
last full paragraph in column 15 of Dubrow.
Under these circumstances, we likewise sustain the Section
102 rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-12 as being anticipated by
Dubrow.
THE SECTION 102 REJECTION BASED ON WILDING
According to the appellants, “Wilding fails to teach an
operative component mounted aboard a multi-layer laminated
substrate [e.g., see independent claim 1]” (brief, page 19). We
cannot agree. As more fully explained in the answer, the device
of Wilding contains microfluidic channels and a variety of
components such as pumps, pressure sensors and heating/cooling
elements (e.g., see lines 27-45 in column 7 and line 66 in column
11 through line 25 in column 13).
We also cannot agree with the appellants’ argument that
Wilding fails to disclose the light sensor feature of dependent
claim 4. Patentee repeatedly describes chromophore and optical
detection (e.g., see lines 48-55 in column 14 and the paragraph
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007