Appeal No. 1997-1668
Application No. 08/361,024
other primer for another polymerase extension reaction. Each time the process is
repeated the amount of newly formed nucleic acid sequences doubles. See col. 2, line 46
- col. 3, line 33. Mullis discloses adding a labeled probe capable of hybridizing to the
sequence being detected/amplified or a mutation thereof (col. 3, lines 25-27) and a kit
comprising the two oligonucleotide primer (col. 3, lines 34-55).
According to the examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious to add a third oligonucleotide into the kit [of
Landegren] for the detection of the ligated product of the first and second
oligonucleotides, as Mullis et al. discloses detecting a nucleic acid product
by using a probe having a sequence complementary to the target nucleic
acid to be detected (col. 3, lines 3-33; in particular, lines 25-27) (answer,
page 4).
The flaw in the examiner's analysis is that the ligated product is not the same as the
first Blocker oligonucleotide. Thus, the "detection" probe might have a sequence
complementary to the second Primer oligonucleotide moiety of the ligated product.
However, all of the claims on appeal require the third End-Run oligonucleotide to
comprises a sequence which is complementary to at least a portion of the first Blocker
oligonucleotide. The examiner has not pointed out, and we do not find, where either
Landegren or Mullis disclose or suggest this limitation, i.e., that the End-Run
oligonucleotide be complementary to at least a portion of the Blocker oligonucleotide.
The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of the modification. That is not the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007