Appeal No. 2006-1787
Application No. 09/746,361
direct contact with the liquid or gel. Consequently, we do not
find error in the Examiner’s stated position, which concludes
that Gilby teaches an interior surface of a capillary body wall
defining an elongate separation chamber that is in direct contact
with a sample material being analyzed. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Therefore, we affirm.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007