Appeal 2006-2686
Application 09/994,495
§ 41.37(c)(7)(2006). Appellants also state that these claims “stand or fall
together” (Br. 10).
The Examiner finds that Franciskovich discloses a system (10) for
processing a plurality of fluid samples that includes a plurality of sample
purification devices (12), where each device (12) comprises a tubular body
(50) having a first end (62), a first end opening (70), a second end (54), a
second end opening (52), and a species-immobilizing filter (51, 53) held
within the tubular body (50) (Answer 3-4). The Examiner further finds that
the system of this reference further includes removable caps (58) for sealing
the second end opening (52), and a sealing device (16) having a surface (36)
adapted to individually seal each of the first end openings (70) (Answer 4).
The Examiner finds that the sealing device is a tray (16) comprising a
plurality of recesses (34), where the tray seals the first end openings during
processing of the fluid samples, with the tray being sealed to plate (14) while
holding the devices (12) during centrifugation (id.). In view of these
findings, the Examiner states that the structure disclosed by Franciskovich
anticipates the system as set forth in claim 1 on appeal, with the Examiner
construing the claimed term “seal” to mean that the openings (70) are closed
with respect to the exterior environment even though fluid can pass through
the openings (70) and into the recesses (34) of the sealing tray (16) (Answer
9-11).
Appellants argue that Franciskovich does not teach a collector plate
16 having an upper surface 36 that seals each of the openings 70 of the
plurality of devices 12 held in manifold 14, let alone a collector plate 16
having an upper surface 36 that individually seals each of the openings 70
(Br. 11). Appellants argue that the collector plate 16 having the upper
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013