Appeal 2007-1624
Application 10/424,662
having particles arranged in a planar array as described by Drmanac (FF 48).
The claimed method steps do not appear to impart any structure or
characteristic to the array which would distinguish it from the array
described in Drmanac. Consequently, we find that Drmanac describes all
elements of the array of oligonucleotides of claim 90, anticipating it.
SUMMARY
The rejections under §§ 102, 103, and 112, first paragraph, are
reversed. The rejection of claim 79 under §112, second paragraph, is
affirmed. A new ground of rejection over prior art is set forth over claims
76-81, 84-86, 88-90, and 105-108. Claims 82 and 83 are not subject to a
rejection.
OTHER ISSUES
Upon return of the application to the technology center, we encourage
the Examiner to determine whether claims 82 and 83 are unpatentable over
Drmanac alone, or in combination with other prior art, including Eggers
which was cited previously in combination with Fodor as making the subject
matter of claims 82 and 83 obvious.
Allen (US 5,488,567, issued Jan. 30, 1996) is cited of interest for its
teaching of an array of beads having attached DNA arranged in a planar
configuration on a microscope slide (at col. 15, ll. 56-60).
TIME PERIOD
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
“Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision of the Board.”
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013