Appeal 2007-1369
Application 10/032,257
combination of elements enumerated in Appellants' claims 1-5 and 16-19 on
appeal" (Principal Br. 11, second para.). However, the Examiner sets forth a
convincing argument that the claim language "specimen treatment and
analysis chamber," when read in light of the present Specification, "includes
additional structural elements that are not positively recited in the instant
claims," such as the additional elements disclosed by Pourahmadi (Answer
5, second para.). Moreover, Appellants' argument misses the thrust of the
Examiner's rejection, i.e., the obviousness of modifying the instrument of
Krulevitch by incorporating the PCR reaction chamber of Pourahmadi. It is
well settled that it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness that all the
features of one reference be bodily incorporated into the invention of another
reference. In re Griver, 354 F.2d 377, 381, 148 USPQ 197, 200 (CCPA
1966); In re Billingsley, 279 F.2d 689, 691, 126 USPQ 370, 372 (CCPA
1960).
As a final point, as noted above, Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013