Appeal No. 94-0120
Application 07/208,512
converting the strand/primer complexes to double-strand fragments in the presence
of polymerase and deoxynucleotides, and
repeating said denaturing, hybridizing, and converting steps until a desired degree
of amplification is achieved.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Mullis et al. (Mullis) 4,683,195 July 28, 1987
Eur. Pat. App. (Van de Sande) 0 224 126 June 3, 1987
Maniatis et al. (Maniatis), “Strategies for cDNA Cloning”, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory
Manual, 227-28 (1982).
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Van de Sande taken with Mullis and Maniatis. We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Appellants state at page 3 of the appeal brief that the claims stand or fall together
for the purposes of this appeal. In stating the rejection on pages 2-5 of the examiner’s
answer, the examiner has rejected the claims as a group and has not applied the
teachings of any specific reference to the requirement of any specific claim.
We make this point since it appears that the examiner’s consideration of the claims in this
application has been limited to claim 1. However, claim 12, another independent claim, is
broader than claim 1. This is seen in that the rejection posited by the examiner relies upon
Maniatis for its description of so-called “conventional differential hybridization techniques.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007