Appeal 2007-3828
Application 10/107,826
The Declarant’s discussion of Exhibit B suffers from several of the
same deficiencies we identified in the discussion of the 2004 Declaration.
For example, the Declarant has failed to indicate the apparatus and
conditions utilized in forming the plate body as well as the lens. The
Declarant also has not identified the materials utilized in forming the plate
body and the lens. Furthermore, the Declarant has not indicated that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the
advantages identified by Uchiyama for compression injection molding
would not have been suitable for forming the well plate of Pham.
Regarding the rejections of claim 20, Appellants essentially rely upon
the arguments presented for the rejection of claim 1 (Br. 14-15). These
arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the
Answer. Thus, we will uphold the rejection.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 1-20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(i)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
LUDOMIR A. BUDZYN
HOFFMAN & BARON, LLP
6900 JERICHO TURNPIKE
SYOSSET, NY 11791
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013