Appeal No. 2006-2569 Page 3
Application No. 09/485,245
polymerase enzyme.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. The examiner acknowledges
that “Godiska [ ] differs from the instant invention in that Godiska [ ] do[es] not
expressly teach wherein the solution comprising the random mixture of 6-mers is
in a freeze-dried state.” Id.
Shen is cited for teaching “a method and composition similar to that of
Godiska [ ], wherein said composition is present in a dry state.” Id. Shen is also
relied upon for teaching “that the composition present in the dry state is
advantageous because the composition is stable for a prolonged period, even
when stored at high temperature,” and that it “is useful in shipping and storage of
commercial preparations for use in e.g., nucleic acid amplification kits.” Id. at 4-
5.
The examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made
to have been motivated to have provided the random mixture of 6-
mers in the method as taught by Godiska [ ] in a dried state for the
advantage taught by Shen [ ] that a nucleic acid composition (such
as primers) present in a dried state is useful in shipping and
storage of commercial preparations due [to, sic] its increased
stability, even when stored for prolonged periods or when stored at
high temperatures.
Id. at 5.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007