Appeal 2006-2686
Application 09/994,495
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Although Sanadi
teaches that the use of adhesive tapes could be unreliable in some situations,
we determine that the teachings of Sanadi do not suggest that adhesive tapes
are unlikely to produce the objective of Appellants’ invention. See In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See
Sanadi, col. 1, ll. 49-56, where Sanadi teaches that adhesive tapes are not
“very reliable,” limit the number of conditions that the plate can be subjected
to, and could not easily be incorporated into automated systems. However,
we determine that this teaching does not lead away from use of adhesive
tapes in some conditions in non-automated systems, and thus there is no
“teaching away” with respect to the objective of Appellants’ invention,
namely sealing the openings of a multi-well array.
With respect to the rejections employing the secondary references to
Bankier, Leying, and Sheer, we note that Appellants do not contest the
application of these references other than stating that these references do not
cure the deficiencies of Franciskovich (Br. 22-23). Accordingly, we repeat
our remarks as discussed above with regard to Franciskovich and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law with respect to the rejections
involving Bankier, Leying, and Sheer (Answer 6-8).
With regard to claims 48 and 49, the Examiner finds that McGraw
discloses a plate (8) having a first surface and a second surface that opposes
the first surface and a plurality of through-holes (11) that define a first
opening and a second opening, where the plate (8) includes a plurality of
species-immobilizing filters (7) disposed in each through-hole (Answer 8).
The Examiner recognizes that McGraw does not disclose the claimed first
and second sealing devices “adapted” to seal the first and second end
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013