Appeal 2007-1369
Application 10/032,257
and is directly connected to the specimen treatment and analysis chamber
and is constructed to receive tissue therefrom.
Appealed claims 1-5 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krulevitch '217 or Krulevitch '474 in
view of Pourahmadi.
Appellants fail to set forth an argument that is reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand
or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his
cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in
sustaining the rejection of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
the Krulevitch patents disclose an instrument for biopsy and analysis of
tissue comprising all the claimed features with the exception of a PCR
reaction chamber having a heating unit adjacent to the PCR reaction
chamber. However, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner, we are
convinced that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the instrument of Krulevitch to include the claimed PCR reaction
chamber in view of the Pourahmadi disclosure. The Examiner properly
points out that Krulevitch discloses that the instrument can be incorporated
into a microfluid system comprising existing micro valves and pumps and is
intended to be used for acquiring specimens for DNA analysis. Pourahmadi,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013