Appeal 2007-0393
Reexamination Control 90/006,786
Patent 6,497,843
1 F. 21. The sole difference asserted by Patentee between the subject matter of
2 Claim 6 of the 620 patent and Claim 1 of the 843 patent is that in the 620
3 patent the wicking material bends over the top of the impermeable member
4 to contact the assay strip while Patentee’s Claim 1 requires the assay strip to
5 bend over the impermeable member to contact the wicking material. Br. 21.
6 F. 22. Thus, according to Patentee, Claim 6 does not describe the limitation
7 that the urine “solely wick up” and “provide for continuous flow of the urine
8 to the assay strip.”
9 F. 23. The differences between the subject matter of Claim 6 of the 620
10 patent and the subject matter of Patentee’s Claim 1 are actually in the
11 configuration of the wicking material and the location of the contact of the
12 wicking material and assay strip.
13 F. 24. In Claim 6 of the 620 patent the wicking material covers the back and
14 edge of the backing and goes down the front side to meet the assay.
15 F. 25. In Claim 1 of the 483 patent the wicking material does not reach the
16 edge of the backing and the assay strip crosses the edge of the backing and
17 contacts the wicking on the back side of the backing.
18 Prosecution of the 620 Patent
19 F. 26. Patentee characterized the 843 Patent as a “continuation” of the 620
20 patent.
21 F. 27. During the prosecution of the application that became the 843 patent,
22 no rejection based upon double patenting was entered.
23 F. 28. During the prosecution of the application that became the 843 patent,
24 Patentee voluntarily filed a terminal disclaimer.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013