Ex Parte Larsson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2012

10834350 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ANDERS LARSSON, KLAS ALLMER, and PER ANDERSSON
____________

Appeal 2010-003911
Application 10/834,350
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or 102(b) of claims 20 through 24 as
anticipated by the disclosure of Kellogg ‘248 (US 6,143,248, issued Nov. 7,
2000) or Kellogg ‘019 (WO 98/07019, pub. Feb. 19, 1998).1

1 Appellants do not question the Examiner’s finding that Kellogg ‘248 and
‘019 have the same disclosure, with Kellogg ‘019 having an earlier
Appeal 2010-003911
Application 10/834,350

2
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer. We only add that Kellogg’s disclosure regarding “[t]he second
end of the second microchannel comprises a surface that is non-wetting
(hydrophobic)” for the purpose of stopping a fluid flow unless subject to a
high rotational speed implies that the remaining portion of the microchannel
is wettable (hydrophilic) since Kellogg describes only two surfaces, wetting
or non-wetting surfaces, for the microchannels of its microfluidic device,
with using either a non-wetting surface or a shape as a valving mechanism.
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)( In determining whether a
prior art reference teaches the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
“it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.”) In any event, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have at least readily envisaged using the wettable surface for the
remaining portion of the microchannel from the two possible surfaces, i.e.,
wetting or non-wetting surfaces, available for the microchannel of the
microfluidic device taught by Kellogg. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben
Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F. 3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he disclosure
of a small genus may anticipate the species of that genus even if the species

publication date. (Compare Ans. 5 with Reply Br. 3.) Appellants also do
not separately argue the claims on appeal. (See App. Br. 4-9 and Reply Br.
1-3.). Accordingly, we decide the propriety of the Examiner’s rejections of
the claims on appeal based on claim 20 alone consistent with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv).
Appeal 2010-003911
Application 10/834,350

3
are not themselves recited.”); see also In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676,
681(CCPA 1962).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

No timer period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

ssl