Appeal 2007-1624
Application 10/424,662
required by claims 76 and 77, for detection purposes. Thus, we conclude
that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
The Examiner also argues that “Fodor specifically teaches and claims
‘an array of beads’ (Column 3, lines 45-Column 4, line 4 and Claim 2)”
(Answer 8). Apparently, the Examiner has interpreted the statement in claim
2 of Fodor that the “solid support comprises an array of beads” to mean that
the beads are arranged on the solid support in a planar configuration. We do
not agree with this interpretation of Fodor. As we understand Fodor’s
disclosure, the solid support (referred to also as “solid phase substrate”) can
be: 1) a matrix supporting a high density of different probes or 2) a bead that
typically only contains one probe. In this context, the phrase in claim 2 that
the “solid support comprises an array of beads” does not mean that beads are
layered on a solid support, but rather means that the beads serve as a solid
support. In addition, we do not see any evidence of record that the term
“array,” itself, indicates that the beads are arranged in a planar configuration
as recited in claims 76 and 77.
In sum, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Fodor
describes or suggests oligonucleotides attached to different particles, where
the particles are arranged on a substrate in a planar configuration as recited
in claims 76 and 77. For this reason, we reverse the rejections of claims 77-
81, 84, 85, 88, 89, 105, 106, and 108 as anticipated by Fodor, of claim 86 as
anticipated by Fodor as defined by Pirrung, and of claims 76 and 106 as
anticipated, or in the alternative, as obvious, over Fodor. We also reverse
the rejections of claim 90 as obvious over Fodor in view of Drmanac and
claims 82, 83, and 107 as obvious over Fodor in view of Eggers, each of
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013