Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
Appellant asserts that none of the applied references teach or suggest
the following limitations of claims 39 and 46, respectively:
probes located at adjacent ends of the reference channel and the
measurement channel and having an elongated nozzle orifice;
(claim 39).
probes respectively coupled to adjacent ends of the reference
channel and the measurement channel, the probes including elongated
nozzle orifices;
(claim 46).
We again find Appellant has failed to comply with the requirements
of 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) by merely reciting the language of the claim and
asserting that such language is not taught by the reference. Nevertheless, we
find Barada teaches probes located at (i.e., respectively coupled to) adjacent
ends of the reference channel and the measurement channel, as claimed. See
Barada, Fig. 1, reference probe 60 and measurement probe 58. We further
agree with the Examiner that Carraras and Zumbach each teaches and/or
suggests a rectangular or elongated nozzle orifice as set forth in the rejection
and discussed supra (see Answer 3-5; see also footnote 1 supra). We have
fully addressed the issue of motivation supra. We again note that a statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s argument
persuasive, and we find that Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 39 and 46 as being unpatentable
over Barada in view of Carraras and also as being unpatentable over Barada
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013