Appeal 2007-3828
Application 10/107,826
Appellants’ principal argument is that there is not a reasonable
expectation of success and there is not any suggestion or motivation to
combine the teachings of Pham with Uchiyama (Br. 7-12). In support of his
position, Appellants argue that:
Pham et al. fails to disclose: 1. injection-compression
molding; and, 2. formation of a separate lens directly onto a
separately formed plate body. Uchiyama et al. discloses
injection-compression molding one part directly onto a second
part. There is, however, no suggestion or motivation to modify
Pham et al. to have a lens formed directly onto a separately
formed multiwell plate body.
(Br. 11).
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner
found that Pham describes a method of forming a multiwell plate comprising
forming a multiwell plate body including an array of wells extending
therethrough and having generally flat portions extending between edges of
the wells. The multiwell plate comprises a clear lens covering at least a
portion of the wells that has been fused to the flat portions of the multiwell
plate body (Answer 3-4). Pham discloses the multiwell plate can be formed
from one or more pieces (Pham, col. 15, ll. 43-48). Pham discloses the
thickness of the bottom layer can range from 10 µm and 1000 µm depending
on the overall properties required of the bottom layer (Pham, col. 13, ll. 54-
63). Pham discloses the multiwell plate can be formed by injection molding
processes (Pham, col. 19). Pham does not disclose that the multiwell plate
can be formed by injection compression molding techniques. The Examiner
found that Uchiyama teaches injection compression molding techniques.
According to Uchiyama, injection compression molding is suitable for
forming complex parts and has the advantages of both injection molding and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013