Appeal 2007-3583
Application 10/238,147
Appellant contends that insertion of the filter element of Kidd into the
caps of Gamble would render Gamble unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
(Br. 4). Furthermore, Appellant contends that Gamble does not suggest any
reason for modifying the container of Kidd (Reply Br. 2).1
The Examiner contends that Kidd has been modified by the teachings
of Gamble, and not the reverse as argued by Appellant (Answer 6).
The Examiner contends that Kidd has been relied on to show the basic
well structure while Gamble has been relied on for the teachings of a multi-
well plate with a plurality of caps, with the attendant benefits of the multi-
well plate assembly (Answer 3-6).
Accordingly, we determine the issues presented from the record in
this appeal are as follows: Has the Examiner identified a proper reason for
combining the features of Kidd and Gamble to result in a multi-well plate
assembly as claimed?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore we
AFFIRM the sole ground of rejection presented in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
1 In addition to arguments directed to claim 20 on appeal, Appellant has
presented specific arguments concerning the rejection of dependent claims
24 and 33-35, as well as independent claim 30 (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3-4).
Therefore we limit our consideration to these claims below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013