Appeal 2007-2213
Application 10/355,433
at least 2 cps” (Br. 16). Instead, Appellants argue, “Okamoto simply
discloses that the viscosity of the ejection liquid may be between 1-15 cps.
This disclosure does not amount to a teaching that sufficient polymer is to be
present to raise the viscosity of the drops comprising probe precursors by at
least 2 cps.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. Okamoto describes solutions
having a viscosity of 1-15 cps. Based on this teaching, we conclude that it
would have been obvious to add an amount of viscosity enhancer that would
raise the viscosity of the drops to a viscosity within this range. As discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that drops having a viscosity of below
9 cps, without the viscosity enhancer, would have been obvious. Since
Okamoto teaches that viscosity is a result-affecting variable, it would have
been obvious to those skilled in the art to vary the amount of viscosity
enhancer so as to discover the optimal value within the range disclosed by
Okamoto, including raising the viscosity by 2 cps or more. Cf. In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a
result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of
the art.”).
Claim 19 indirectly depends from claim 1 and requires that a result of
a reading obtained by reading the array formed by the method of claim 1 be
forwarded to a remote location. Appellants argue that “nowhere does
Brennan, Eckstein or Okamoto, alone or in combination, teach or suggest
forwarding . . . a result from reading the array to . . . a remote location.
Brennan simply discloses reading the array and is completely silent as to
forwarding . . . the results to . . . a remote location.” (Br. 17.)
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013