Appeal 2007-2213
Application 10/355,433
different probe precursors, wherein the viscosity of the drops
containing the different probe precursors varies by 2 cps or less
from one another.
(Id. at 12.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As discussed above,
Okamoto describes a viscosity of 1-15 cps (Okamoto, col. 4, ll. 43-45).
Based on this teaching, we agree with the Examiner that a viscosity between
7 and 15 cps would have been obvious, meeting the limitation in claim 1 of a
viscosity “above 7 cps.” Overlapping ranges support a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Although Okamoto describes ranges of concentration and viscosity, it
does not indicate that different drops should have different concentrations
and viscosities within these ranges. As also discussed above, we conclude
that it would have been obvious to vary, as needed, the amount of viscosity
enhancer in drops containing different phosphoramidites so that all of the
drops have approximately the same viscosity (e.g., a viscosity within 2 cps
of one another) so that the solutions would display the same properties in
ejection from a pump and retention on a substrate.
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner’s assertion that different
monomers prepared in the same solution inherently have the same viscosity
is wrong” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants point to the Table on page 4 of the
Specification as showing that “the presence of the different
phosphoramidites changes the viscosity of the overall solution to a different
extent” (id.).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013