Appeal No. 95-1682
Application 07/853,459
comparable than the tokens of the data. Maizel shows tokens
but does not show the process of modifying the original data
to produce the tokens or aggregating the bases into other
tokens. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejec-
tion of claims 6 and 9.
Claims 18 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pustell, Maizel, Aho and
Salton. Appellants argue on page 9 of the reply brief that
Pustell, Maizel, Aho and Salton fail to teach or suggest that
the tokens of claim 8 are "values of an attribute of records
in a sequence thereof" as recited in claim 18, that the tokens
of claim 8 are "words in a text" as recited in claim 19 and
that the tokens of claim 20 are "lines in a text."
After a careful review of Pustell, Maizel, Aho and
Salton, we fail to find that these references teach modifying
the Pustell homology matrix program for scoring sequences of
DNA bases to provide tokens that are values of an attribute of
records in a sequence or words of a text. However, we do find
as we have pointed out for claim 4, Pustell and Maizel teach
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007