Appeal 2006-0592
Application 10/278,274
[to dissolve the deblocking reagent]) . . . as a washing reagent” (Office
Action 10-11).
Finally, Appellants argue that “neither Earhart, Lowe . . . and Perbost
teach or suggest removing the deblocking solution from the deblocked
surface by dripping” (Brief 15). Again, we agree with the Examiner that
“one of ordinary skill in the art would know well enough that excess solution
could be removed by dripping the solution off the substrate” (Answer 12),
regardless of whether there are subsequent washing steps.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20 would have been obvious over the cited prior art,
which Appellants have not adequately rebutted by argument or evidence.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
dm
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMIN., LEGAL DEPT.
MS BLDG. E.P.O. BOX 7599
LOVELAND, CO 80537
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013