Ex Parte Wagner - Page 5


              Appeal No. 2005-2663                                                               Page 5                
              Application No. 10/140,323                                                                               

                     Thus, claim 1 is directed to a method for determining the adjacency list of a                     
              graph representation of a genetic network by starting with an accessibility list derived                 
              from genetic perturbation data, applying graph theory mathematics to determine a                         
              condensation of the genetic network graph,2 and applying graph theory mathematics to                     
              the condensation’s accessibility list.                                                                   
                     Claim 2 adds the limitation that a recursive algorithm is applied.  Claim 3 adds                  
              the further limitation that the algorithm determines the adjacency list of the “most                     
              parsimonious graph,” i.e., the simplest set of regulatory interactions that will fully explain           
              the accessibility list.  See the specification, page 14 and Figure 7.                                    
                     Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and adds the limitation that the algorithm                           
              determines the longest path of the graph.  “Paths are sequences of edges connecting                      
              adjacent nodes.”  Specification, page 6.  Thus, the longest path in the graph would                      
              represent the longest series of regulatory interactions between genes in the network;                    
              “[a] by-product of the algorithm [that calculates the maximum path] is the adjacency list                
              of each node.”  Page 41.                                                                                 
              2.  Definiteness                                                                                         
                     The examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,                     
              as being indefinite.  Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and recites a series of steps in                      
              pseudocode that are implemented in the recursive algorithm.  The examiner reasoned                       
              that “the last line of claim 6 recites a list of G which causes the claim to be vague and                
                                                                                                                       
              2 A “condensation” of a graph is derived by “collaps[ing] all nodes that are part of a cycle.”  Specification,
              page 13.  A cycle in a genetic network is a set of genes that all influence each other (directly or indirectly).
              Thus, perturbing any one gene in the cycle affects all of them:  “Single gene perturbations cannot resolve
              gene orders in a cycle.” Page 12.  Therefore, all the genes in a cycle must be condensed to a single     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007