Appeal 2007-1163
Application 10/172,470
Brennan describes “a transport mechanism coupled to at least one of
the head assembly and the base assembly to produce relative movement
therebetween,” which “positions the reaction well and a selected one nozzle
in alignment for deposition of a liquid reagent into the reaction well”
(Brennan, col. 3, ll. 57-62). Disposed in the reaction well is at least one
solid support “for growing and immobilizing a polymer chain thereon” (id.
at col. 10, ll. 4-6). As pointed out by the Examiner, the transport mechanism
moves the substrate and the flow cell, i.e., the well that contains the
substrate (Answer 5). Thus, it does not move a support “to and from said
station for monomer addition and a flow cell,” nor does it move a support
“from one flow cell to another flow cell.” Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Brennan anticipates
claim 26 or claim 27, which depends from claim 26. We therefore reverse
the rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Brennan in view of Kedar. Claim 24 depends from claim 23. The Examiner
relies on Brennan for teaching a flow cell assembly according to claim 23, as
well as computer-controlled inlets (Answer 6). The Examiner relies on
Kedar for teaching that “fluid level sensors are used to detect fluid within
reservoirs and vessels to thereby control [a] device according to fluid
presence” (id.). The Examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to
apply the fluid sensors of Kedar to the device of Brennan for the benefit of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013