Appeal No. 2006-2654
Application No. 10/100,276
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims in
this appeal is:
Yager U.S. Pat. 5,971,158 Oct. 26, 1998
Weigl U.S. Pat. 5,972,710 Oct. 26, 1999
Malmqvist U.S. Pat. 6,200,814 B1 Mar. 13, 2001
There are three prior art rejections: 1) Claims 1-8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yager; 2) Claims 1-8 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Weigl; and 3) Claims 1-8 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Malmqvist. Br. 6.
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that the claim limitation of a “wall defining a
dam” is satisfied by the prior art disclosure of a fluid barrier formed by two
laminar flow fluid streams flowing in parallel through a single channel.
Answer 4-6.
Appellants contend that the “wall defining a dam” is an integral part
of the claimed apparatus. They assert that “[t]he fluid barriers taught by [the
cited prior art] are not integral features of the device and as such do not meet
the structural limitations of Appellants’ claimed apparatus.” Br. 7. They
also argue that the cited prior art patents do not disclose two channels
separated by a dam structure as required by the claims. Id. at 8, 10, 11.
The sole issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of claim 1,
particularly whether a “fluid barrier” produced by two laminar flow fluid
streams satisfies the limitation of a “wall defining dam” recited in claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013