Ex Parte Mohammed - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-3395                                                                               
                Application 10/260,733                                                                         
                      The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 18-25, 28-31, 34-                      
                41, 46-49, 54-58, 61-62 and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Answer3 at 3 and                      
                7).  The Examiner relies upon the following prior art4 of record:                              
                      Bradley                  US 6,048,695               Apr. 11, 2000                       
                      Boa                      US 6,251,601 B1            Jun. 26, 2001                       
                      Kuukasjärvi, "Optimizing DOP-PCR for Universal Amplification of                          
                      Small DNA Samples in Comparative Genomic Hybridization," Genes,                          
                      Chromosomes & Cancer, Vol. 18, pp. 94-101 (1997).                                        
                Bradley, Bao and Kuukasjärvi qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).                    
                According to the Examiner, claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 18-25, 28-31, 34-41, 46,                    
                54-58, 61-62 and 86 would have been obvious over the combined teachings                        
                of Bao and Kuukasjärvi; and, claims 47-49 would have been obvious over                         
                the combined teaches of Bao, Kuukasjärvi, and Bradley.                                         
                      According to Appellant, the patentability of all the claims on appeal                    
                stand or fall with claim 1 (Br. at 5 and 8).  Therefore, we decide this appeal                 
                on the basis of claim 1.  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v).                                          
                II.   Findings of Fact ("FF")                                                                  
                      The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of                       
                the evidence of record.                                                                        
                      A.     Appellant's specification                                                         
                 [1] CGH is said to be a molecular cytogenetics approach that can be used                      
                      to detect regions in a genome undergoing quantitative changes, e.g.,                     
                      gains or losses of sequence or copy numbers (Specification at 28, ¶                      
                      85).                                                                                     
                 [2] According to the specification, the                                                       
                                                                                                               
                3 Examiner's Answer mailed 12 March 2007 ("Answer").                                           
                4 No references to et al. are made in this opinion.                                            

                                                      4                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013