Appeal 2007-2807
Reexamination 90/006,511
Patent 5,156,811
takes issue with the Examiner’s finding that Sharpe’s filters are useful in
both mechanical pipettes and manual pipettes. The patentee asserts that
Sharpe discloses nothing about mechanical pipettes and that the mechanical
devices Sharpe refers to (Sharpe 1:14-18) are directed not to pipettes but to
mechanical fluid collection devices in medical or biological equipment
which makes use of a power pump and feeding mechanism.
The issue and arguments about mechanical pipettes are misdirected.
None of the claims requires a mechanical pipette wherein the necessary
suction is provided by something other than a user’s mouth. In proceedings
before the Patent and Trademark Office, claim terms are properly construed
according to their broadest reasonable interpretation not inconsistent with
the specification. Here, such an interpretation of the term “suction device”
in the claims encompasses manual suction through a user’s mouth as Sharpe
discloses.
Furthermore, the Examiner is correct that Sharpe discloses not just
mouth pipettes but also mechanical pipettes. The portion of Sharpe cited by
the Examiner (Answer 12:7) is reproduced below (Sharpe col.1:14-22):
For example it is vital that with manual pipetting, traces of a
toxic sample are not sucked up into the mouth; and in
mechanical devices it is important that pumping and feeding
mechanisms are not contaminated in use. Where mechanisms
are contaminated there is risk of traces of one sample being
carried over to the next, and the need for very thorough
cleaning between each operation.
The cited text is discussing, in the context of mechanical mechanisms,
multiple sampling and potential contamination from one sample to the next.
That is language pertaining to pipettes which are used for gathering samples.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013