Appeal 2007-3828
Application 10/107,826
forming a multiwell plate body, said multiwell plate body including
an array of wells extending therethrough and generally flat portions
extending between edges of said wells; and
injection-compressing a clear lens to said multiwell plate body so as
to be fused to said flat portions of said multiwell plate body, said clear lens
extending between and covering at least a portion of said wells.
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Gilbert US 4,521,172 Jun. 4, 1985
Pham US 6,171,780 B1 Jan. 9, 2001
Uchiyama US 6,328,920 B1 Dec. 11, 2001
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Pham and Uchiyama.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Pham, Uchiyama, and Gilbert.
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellants, the
issue before us is: Has the Examiner made accurate and sufficient factual
findings such that it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
references in the manner claimed within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
We answer this question in the affirmative.1
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
1 Appellants have not provided separate arguments for all the rejected
claims. We will limit our discussion to claims 1 and 11.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013