Appeal 2007-0169
Application 10/262,015
III. REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 3, 5, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Pisharody; and
2) Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
disclosure of Pisharody.
IV. DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 102(e):
In rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
the Examiner finds (Answer 3) that:
Pisharody et al disclose an electrophoretic device (Paragraph
0155) comprising: a nanolaminated structure comprising a
plurality of alternating conductive and insulative layers as
claimed (Figures 4A-6B; paragraphs 0073-0075 and 0080); a
three walled non-electrically conductive structure connected to
the nanolaminated structure, so as to form an enclosed fluid
channel as claimed (Paragraph 0079; the nanolaminated
structure mounted in a side of a conventional microchannel
would read on this limitation); and means for producing an
electric field across the conductive layers of the laminate.
(Paragraphs 0086-0088)
The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Pisharody teaches
an electrophoretic device comprising a nano-scale laminated structure, a
three walled non-electrically conductive structure and a means for producing
electric field arranged in the claimed manner (Br. 3-4). The Appellants only
argue that Pisharody does not teach “nanolaminate materials as recited in
claim 1 of the present invention (id.).” In support of this argument, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013