Appeal No. 95-1682
Application 07/853,459
On pages 8-10 of the brief, pages 3-4 of the reply
brief and pages 2 and 3 of the supplemental reply brief,
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as
being unpatentable is improper because Maizel and Pustell
cannot handle many more than 10,000 bases. We note that
Appellants' claim 8 recites "the means for making the dotplot
is able to make a dotplot wherein each sequence of tokens
being compared contains at least n tokens, where n >> 10,000."
On page 2 of the supplemental reply brief, Appel-
lants state that they do not doubt that the Maizel program can
handle sequences of more than 10,000 bases. However, the
Appellants argue that Maizel and Pustell cannot in fact handle
many more than 10,000 bases as recited in Appellants' claim 8.
We find that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case. Maizel teaches on page 7665 that these programs
enable the approach to be used with sequences of more than
10,000 bases. Appellants have not shown how the claim lan-
guage of "n >> 10,000" distinguishes over the teachings of
Maizel. Furthermore, Appellants have not shown that the
Maizel programs are not enabled to be used with sequences of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007