Ex Parte Wagner - Page 11


              Appeal No. 2005-2663                                                              Page 11                
              Application No. 10/140,323                                                                               

                     and analyzing paths and pathways as directed to genetic interactions data                         
                     from DNA chip wherein said data is derived from disease state type of                             
                     perturbation data (pages 825-826, Introduction § and Figures 2, 3, 11, and                        
                     12).  The said method comprises constructing graphs from data derived                             
                     from a plurality of databases wherein alias lists for the elements from said                      
                     plurality of databases (page 827, column 1, line 30 to column 2, line 19).                        
                     For example, SWISSPROT may be used for referencing protein coding                                 
                     genes (page 826, column 2, lines 13-24), as in instant claims 1 and 9.                            
              Examiner’s Answer, pages 7-8.                                                                            
                     Appellant argues that Küffner does not anticipate because it does not disclose all                
              the limitations of the claims, pointing specifically to the “perturbation data” and                      
              “adjacency list” limitations of the independent claims.  See the Appeal Brief, pages 12-                 
              15.                                                                                                      
                     The standard under § 102 is one of strict identity.  “[A]nticipation requires that all            
              of the elements and limitations of the claim are found within a single prior art reference.”             
              Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18                             
              USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  If a limitation of the claimed invention is not                     
              present, either expressly or inherently, in the prior art reference, the claim is not                    
              anticipated.                                                                                             
                     In this case, the examiner’s explanation of the rejection does not address many                   
              of the limitations of claim 1.  The examiner has pointed to Küffner’s “constructing graphs               
              from data derived from a plurality of databases.”  Examiner’s Answer, page 7.  This                      
              might (or might not) represent a “graph representation of a genetic network” as recited                  
              in claim 1.  But the examiner has not explained where Küffner discloses “obtaining a                     
              first accessibility list of [a] graph representation of a genetic network from appropriate               
              genetic perturbation data,” or “determin[ing] a condensation of the graph,” or “applying                 






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007