Appeal No. 2006-2654
Application No. 10/100,276
Comment [U1]: Question with
Additionally, Yager does not describe a first and second channels channel s
formed by the “surface” of the apparatus as required by the properly
interpreted claim 1. Yager describes only a single integral channel which it
refers to as the “extraction channel.”
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found in a single prior art reference. See Verdegaal Bros. v.
Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Yager does not describe an apparatus comprising a “wall
defining a dam” nor two channels “separated over said at least one part of
their length” by the dam as required by claim 1. Because these elements are
missing from Yager, it cannot anticipate claim 1.
Weigl and Malmqvist are relied on by the Examiner for the same
teaching found in Yager of a microfluidic device comprising, when fluid
streams are present, a fluid barrier formed by two parallel flowing fluid
streams. Answer 5, 6. These patents are deficient for the same reasons
discussed for Yager.
With at least two structural limitations absent from the cited prior art
microfluidic devices, we cannot sustain any of the Examiner’s rejections
under § 102(b). The rejections of claims 1-8 are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013