Appeal 2007-1019
Application 09/851,231
arguments raised by Appellants, we will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as
our own in sustaining the rejections of record. We add the following for
emphasis only.
There is apparently no dispute that Cammack, like Appellants,
discloses an apparatus having a sealed open microchannel therein
comprising an etched open microchannel in substrates that are fusion bonded
together and annealed. The principal argument advanced by Appellants is
that the reference “statements that etched microchannel half cavity 20 and
etched microchannel half cavity 22 are subsequently annealed does not
provide anticipation of Appellants’ claim element, ‘annealed open
microchannel/providing an annealed open microchannel’ of Appellants’
independent claims 11 and 17” (Br. 13, last sentence).
Hence, it is Appellants’ position that the claimed apparatus
distinguishes over the apparatus of Cammack by having a microchannel
annealed in one substrate as opposed to the reference etching of
microchannels in both substrates.
We fully concur with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive. Regarding apparatus claims 11-16, the Examiner correctly
explains that the claim recitation “an annealed open microchannel” is a
process limitation that does not further define the structure of the apparatus.
Appellants have not established on this record that there is any structural
distinction between the microchannel defined by claim 11 and the
microchannel described by Cammack. In the words of the Examiner,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013