Appeal No. 1997-1668
Application No. 08/361,024
said components being capable of buffering said reaction to a pH of
6 - 9 and capable of promoting ligase and polymerase specificity and
processivity. [Emphasis added.]
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Mullis et al. (Mullis) 4,683,195 Jul. 28, 1987
Landegren et al. (Landegren) 4,988,617 Jan. 29, 1991
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Landegren in view of Mullis. We REVERSE.
In reaching our decision in this appeal we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 37,
mailed July 23, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection and to the
appellant's brief (Paper No. 36, filed April 22, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be both some
suggestion or motivation to modify the reference or combine reference teachings and a
reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the prior art must teach or suggest all
the claim limitations. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007