Appeal 2007-1163
Application 10/172,470
together with the provision of positive pressure of gas entering
gas inlet #70, even if simultaneous and even if controlled by
Brennan’s software, does not satisfy the claim limitation of
element (d) of Claim 23 under this interpretation of Brennan in
light of the components of Brennan identified in the Answer as
corresponding to the claimed elements.
(Id. at 3.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. Although the Examiner
identifies gas outlet 71 as a vent, she also identifies gas inlet 70 as a vent.
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that gas
inlet 70 meets the limitations of the separate vent recited in claim 23. The
fact that the Examiner also refers to gas outlet 71 as a vent has no bearing on
whether gas inlet 70 meets these claim limitations.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 23 is anticipated by Brennan, which Appellants have not rebutted. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 25
falls with claim 23.
With regard to claim 26, the Examiner argues that, in Brennan,
each well is encompassed by the claimed flow cell and each
well comprises substrates (#75). [T]he mechanism for moving
the substrate also moves the flow cell. Additionally, the
transport mechanism . . . moves the flow cell and substrate to a
station for monomer addition (i.e. the position under the
monomer-specific nozzle).
(Answer 5.)
Appellants argue that “Brennan fails to disclose . . . a mechanism for
moving a support to and from the station for monomer addition and a flow
cell and from one flow cell to another flow cell” (Br. 7). We agree.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013