Appeal 2006-2686
Application 09/994,495
openings, respectively (id.). The Examiner applies Sanadi for the teaching
to avoid the problem of cross-contamination of an array of tube or multi-
well plates by sealing the openings associated with the array of tubes or
wells by a variety of sealing devices, such as plates, tapes, and caps (Answer
8-9). From these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
employ the sealing devices disclosed by Sanadi to seal the openings of an
array device such as disclosed by McGraw to prevent contamination of the
wells of the array device (Answer 9).
Appellants argue that the combination of McGraw with Sanadi is
improper because there is no motivation or suggestion supporting the
combination since McGraw does not suggest sealing any opening but
requires that the inlet and outlet openings remain open (Br. 27). Appellants
argue that Sanadi requires one closed end and one open end, and thus there
would be no motivation to combine this disclosure with the teachings of
McGraw (Br. 28-29). Finally, Appellants argue that assuming such a
motivation does exist, the modification would render McGraw unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose (Br. 29).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly argued by the
Examiner, McGraw requires the inlet and outlet openings to remain open
during processing but one of ordinary skill in this art would have readily
recognized that sealing the inlet and outlet openings prior to or after
processing would have prevented contamination of the device contents, as
taught by Sanadi (Answer 19-20). Accordingly, the use of first and second
sealing devices for the first and second end openings, respectively, would
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013