Appeal 2007-2448
Application 10/192,352
Turner (id. at 11-14). Claims 37, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Kobylecki, Goldberg, and Anderson (id. at 14-16).
Claim 2 is the only independent claim, and therefore all of the claims
rejected as obvious require claim 2’s step of “assembling bead arrays
comprising many differently optically encoded beads having biomolecules
attached thereto said biomolecules being identified by said optical
encoding.” In each of the obviousness rejections, the Examiner relies solely
on Kobylecki’s disclosure to meet that limitation (see Answer 7, 12, 15). As
discussed above, however, we do not agree with the Examiner that
Kobylecki discloses that limitation. Moreover, the Examiner does not point
to, and we do not see, where Kobylecki or any of the other references
suggests performing claim 2’s “assembling” step.
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim,”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Because we do not
agree with the Examiner that the cited references suggest a process having
claim 2’s step of “assembling bead arrays comprising many differently
optically encoded beads having biomolecules attached thereto said
biomolecules being identified by said optical encoding,” and because all of
the claims rejected as obvious require that step, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 2, 9, 24, 26-29, 35-37, 41, and 42.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 26-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kobylecki. We also reverse the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013