Appeal 2006-2813
Application 10/168,887
11, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Corbin. Also, claims 1-6 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Blaney,
while claims 7-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Blaney and Corbin.1
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed subject
matter is unpatentable over the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
which we incorporate herein, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not set forth specific arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected by the
Examiner stand or fall together.
We first consider the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 16,
17, 19, and 20 under § 102 over Corbin. There is apparently no dispute that
Corbin describes a liquid handling member comprising first and second
zones separated by membrane material having an actual surface area that
falls within the claimed range and is capable of maintaining a pressure
differential between the two zones without permitting air to penetrate from
the first to the second zone. Appellants' principal argument is that "Corbin
fails to disclose a liquid handling member with a second zone that is
connected to a suction device" (page 4 of principal Brief, last paragraph).
Although there is no dispute that Corbin explicitly teaches applying a
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (see page 13 of Answer, second paragraph).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007