Appeal No. 2006-1563
Application No. 09/839,778
involves a “detection means” which collects light from a “waveguide”. Specification,
page 16. Such detection means produces a signal and “[s]uch imaging signal collection
provides simultaneous measurement of multiple samples in a much simpler way than a
system in which a separate optical element is needed to read each well or patch.”
Specification, page 16.
Anticipation
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Jackowski.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The standard under § 102 is one of strict
identity. “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a
single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Every element of the claimed
invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3),
Jackowski discloses a method for performing an assay, comprising:
substantially simultaneously evaluating the presence of a plurality of
analytes in a sample, at least one analyte having known parameters
indicative of an acute metabolic or disease state, see column 4, lines 32 -
column 8, line 31, and column 19, lines 8-14; substantially simultaneously
determining concentrations of each of the analytes, col. 29, lines 31-39;
continuing the determination until the analyte has been reliably determined
to be present in an amount indicative of the metabolic or disease state,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007