Appeal 2007-1132
Application 10/036,999
We reverse the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-11, and 18-20. We affirm
the rejection of claim 1. However, because our reasoning differs from that
of the Examiner we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
DISCUSSION
The claimed invention relates to methods of scanning an array, e.g., a
polynucleotide array (Specification 1; claims). Polynucleotide “arrays
include features (sometimes referenced as spots or regions) of usually
different sequence polynucleotides arranged in a predetermined
configuration on a substrate” (Specification 1). For clarity, we direct
attention to Appellants’ Figures 1 and 2, which illustrate a predetermined
configuration of features (16) on the face (12) of the substrate (10)
(Specification 8; Figures 1 and 2). According to Appellants’ Specification
the features “are disposed in a pattern which defines the array”
(Specification 8).
Therefore, when exposed to a sample the array will exhibit a binding
pattern. The array can then
be interrogated by observing this binding pattern by, for
example, labeling all polynucleotide targets . . . in a sample
with a suitable label (such as a fluorescent compound),
scanning an interrogating light across the array and accurately
observing the fluorescent signal from the different features of
the array. Assuming that the different sequence
polynucleotides were correctly deposited in accordance with the
predetermined configuration, then the observed binding pattern
will be indicative of the presence and/or concentration of one or
more polynucleotide components of the sample.
(Specification 2.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013