Appeal 2007-1369
Application 10/032,257
on the other hand, demonstrates that it was known in the art to combine a
microfabricated sample preparation device, which includes tissue cutting,
with a microfabricated analyte detection structure and/or a polynucleotide
amplification structure. As set forth by the Examiner, "[t]he instrument [of
Pourahmadi] includes a specimen treatment section (including treatment
chambers 107, 119, 122, 141) located adjacent the specimen chamber (103)
and a PCR reaction chamber that is integral or abuts the specimen treatment
section" (Answer 4, second para.).
Hence, based on the collective teachings of the applied prior art, we
fully concur with the Examiner's legal conclusion that "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to provide the device of the references of Krulevitch et al. with a PCR
chamber directly connected to the sample treatment chamber for the known
and expected result of further processing the tissue sample within the same
device as suggested by the reference of Pourahmadi et al. while providing
the advantages associated with the structure of the device of Krulevitch"
(sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 of Answer). In our view, Appellants'
claimed microfabricated biopsy and analysis instrument represents nothing
more than a combination that unites old elements of the prior art with no
change in their respective functions and which yields predictable results.
KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Appellants have apprised us of no unexpected results associated with the
presently claimed modified instrument of Krulevitch.
Appellants make the argument that Pourahmadi "fails to show a
microfabricated biopsy and analysis instrument for biopsy and analysis of
tissues with minimal handling of the tissue, 'consisting of' the specific
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013