Appeal No. 2006-3006 Page 5
Application No. 10/123,713
are “separated spatially from one another on the uppermost surface” of the array
support. In sum, we find no merit in Appellants’ factually incorrect argument.3
Lizardi is relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching of an array with
different array members immobilized on it. Answer 3: 17-23. Appellants assert
that “the term ‘array’ in Lizardi . . . is logically consistent only with a well plate.”
Reply Br. 2.
We also do not find any merit in Appellants’ argument regarding Lizardi.
As noted by the Examiner (Answer 7: 20-25), Lizardi very clearly describes
support surfaces which are not well plates. “Solid-state substrates . . . include . . .
nitrocellulose . . . thin films or membranes . . . glass slides.” Lizardi, col. 24, ll.
6-21. Appellants’ argument to the contrary is contradictory to Lizardi’s express
disclosure.
Appellants also assert that
[f]urther support of Applicant’s position that Lizardi et al. requires physical
isolation of specific binding pair first members in separate wells is found in
Example 5 (column 65, line 1 - column 66, line 31). It is respectfully
submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that without
isolating the solutions of target molecules to individual wells, per Example
5, step 3 (column 65, lines 29-36), fluorescent development would result in a
completely uniform test result, which would be devoid of information.
Br. 6. See also Reply Br. 2.
The section in Example 5 referred to by Appellants describes the preparation
of fluorescently labeled probes. When the entire example is read, it is apparent
that the labeled probes are then applied to an array of different oligonucleotides
immobilized on the uppermost and top surface of a glass slide.
3 In the Reply Brief, Appellants concede they erred in their statement that Bobrow
teaches “microwell strips.” Reply Br. 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013