Appeal No. 95-3606
Application 07/827,691
site (see figure 1A, primers #203 and #213); detection
by hybridization with a labeled CGG repeat probe (Kremer,
p. 1713, Fig. 3, caption, see for example lines 18-22).
Kremer discloses that size (or “number of base pairs”) of
a fragile X region is indicative of the fragile X genetic
defect. “In addition, the repeat sequences exhibit
instability and are generally larger in affected members
of a pedigree than their unaffected carrier relatives . .
.”
(Kremer, page 1714, column 3, lines 11-14).
While Kremer does not explicitly teach combining the
materials of the method together in a kit, it would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to package the
materials together in a manner convenient for use to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
The claims differ from Kremer in reciting the use
of greater than 5 PCR cycles, a standard PCR buffer and
use of 7-deaza-2'-GTP and in the absence of dGTP. . . .
Interestingly, in their Supplemental Reply To Examiner’s
Answer Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.193(b) filed September 15, 1995,
or June 11, 1996, appellants do not respond to the examiner’s
characterization of Kremer’ disclosure and teaching.
On close scrutiny, we find that the examiner too
generally characterized Kremer’s disclosure. Figure 1(A)
depicts the
“DNA sequence of 1.03-kb Pst I fragment containing the p(CCG)n
trinucleotide repeat” (Kremer, p. 1712, Fig. 1(A); emphasis
added). Under Fig. 1(A), Kremer indicates (emphasis added):
For sequencing, the 1.03-kp Pst I restriction
endonuclease
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007