Appeal 2007-1624
Application 10/424,662
“beads”1) arranged on a substrate in a planar configuration. The following
rejections are on review in this appeal:
1) Claims 77-86, 88, 89, and 105-108 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement (Answer 3);
2) Claim 79 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (Answer 4);
3) Claims 77-81, 84, 85, 88, 89, 105, 106, and 108 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Fodor (US 5,800,992, filed Dec.
15, 1993) (Answer 4);
4) Claim 86 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Fodor as defined in Pirrung (US 5,143,854, filed Mar. 7, 1990) (Answer 7);
5) Claims 76 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Fodor, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Fodor (Answer 9);
6) Claim 90 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Fodor in view of Drmanac (EP 0 392 546 A2, published Oct. 17, 1990)
(Answer 11); and
7) Claims 82, 83, and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Fodor in view of Eggers (US 5,532,128, issued Jul. 2,
1996) (Answer 13).
Claims 76, 77, and 90 are representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1 Spec. 8: 14.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013