Appeal No. 1996-2442
Application 08/062,021
(at least one of which is specific for hCMV) with defined hybridization and melting
temperatures.
Rejections I and II
Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 13, 16 through 20, 22 through 27, 30, 31, 33, 35
through 37, and 39 through 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Nedjar, Brytting, Gibbs and Findlay (Rejection I), while 1 through 8, 10 through 13,
16 through 20, 22 through 27, 30, 31, 33 and 35 through 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nedjar, Brytting, Gibbs, Chamberlain and Findlay
(Rejection II). We shall address both rejections together, as they are identical but for
the examiner’s additional reliance on Chamberlain in Rejection II, and a perplexing
difference in the claims to which they are applied.2
Gibbs discloses a premixed multiplex PCR kit containing eight sets of primer
pairs for simultaneous amplification and detection of eight distinct regions of the
hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase gene. All sixteen primers are designed to
conform as closely as possible to a general formula of 24 bases with a 50% GC
content, and the concentration of each primer set in the mixture is adjusted to
compensate for uneven signal strength (i.e., Gibbs’ primers are not present in equal
amounts, the concentration of each set is adjusted relative to the other sets to allow
2 According to the examiner, Chamberlain was added as evidence that certain
limitations of the claims, not taught in the other references, were known in the art. It is
not clear from the examiner’s discussion Chamberlain why claims 39-42 are included in
Rejection I, but not Rejection II; nor is it clear why claim 38 is included in Rejection II,
but not Rejection I.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007