Appeal No. 2003-0892 Page 5
Application No. 09/454,385
readily” (Brief, pages 5-6). The examiner does not disagree.
Thus, the teachings of the Mandecki and Albrecht do not appear to be in dispute.
Rather the dispute is one of claim construction. According to the examiner, “the claim
is open to . . . detection of every fluorophore and every reporter simultaneously”
(Answer, page 8), and “detection of multiple different molecules along with the single
molecule” (id., page 7) is permitted. We disagree.
The claimed method requires “identifying single molecules having a given target
DNA or RNA sequence” (claim 1) by selecting a primer complementary to the target
sequence; hybridizing the primer to the target sequence; forming a fluorescent reporter
molecule by extending the primer along the target sequence, in a manner
complementary to the target sequence, by progressively binding a plurality of
nucleotides, some of which are fluorophore-labeled, to the primer; and detecting the
fluorescent target/reporter molecule by flow cytometry or single molecule
electrophoresis. While it may be, as the examiner argues, that there is “no requirement
that the detection proceed without detecting additional molecules” (Answer, page 7),
each target molecule must be detected as an individual entity - we see nothing in the
claim which is open to detection of an aggregate of multiple target molecules.
Inasmuch as neither Mandecki nor Albrecht detects a signal from an individual,
discrete reporter molecule, neither reference meets every limitation of the claim 1, the
broadest claim on appeal. Accordingly, we find that neither reference anticipates the
claims, and we reverse the rejection of the claims over Mandecki, as well as the
rejection of the claims over Albrecht.
Obviousness
Conrad describes “fluorescent structural analogs of the non-fluorescent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007