Appeal 2007-3828
Application 10/107,826
The Declaration of Hall, filed December 1, 2004, is not persuasive of
patentability. The Declarant indicates that the Cook reference (U.S.
5,989,854) has been reviewed. We note that the appealed rejections do not
include the Cook reference. Notwithstanding this, the declaration purports
to provide a showing of “short shot” injection molding of a lens onto a
previously formed plate body. The evidence presented in this declaration is
not persuasive of patentability for several reasons. The Declarant has failed
to indicate the apparatus and conditions utilized in forming the wellplate
body as well as the lens material. The Declarant utilizes different materials
for forming the plate well body and the lens.2 The Declarant has also failed
to provide a discussion of the thickness of the lens material. Furthermore,
the Declarant has not indicated that the Pham and Uchiyama references have
been utilized in formulating the opinions of the Declaration.
We now turn to the Hall Declaration filed September 20, 2006. This
declaration is also not persuasive of patentability. The Declarant indicates
that the Pham reference, utilized in the rejection on appeal, has been
reviewed (¶ 5). However, the Declarant has not indicated that the Uchiyama
reference had been reviewed. The Declarant recognizes that Pham indicates
that the bottom layer of the multi-well platform may have a thickness
between 10 µm and 1000 µm (¶ 10). While the Declarant recognizes that
Pham teaches that the bottom layer may have a thickness of 1000 µm, the
Declarant chooses to base his opinion on the use of layers of 10 µm (see the
discussion of the Exhibits A and B in ¶ 10).
2 It is possible that the discoloration that occurs as a result of the pigment
utilized in the plate body.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013