14. Accordingly, all the remaining Davey claims are
directed to processes that must be undertaken "at a relatively
constant temperature and without serial addition of reagents."
15. According to Davey and Burg, the remaining Davey
claims are patentably distinct from the Burg claims.
16. In particular, Davey and Burg argue that (Paper 16
at 3):
The USPTO has not cited any prior art indicating
that the novel approach of Davey in its claims 1-5,
8 and 15, would have been obvious over the Burg
claims. The claims call for adding reagents with
many activities. It would not have been obvious to
the person of ordinary skill in the art that all of
these reagents could be added at the beginning of
the process with no serial addition of reagents
during the course of the entire process.
Furthermore, it has not been shown that it would
have been obvious that this mixture of reagents and
material would react effectively and without
undesirable cross reactions to give amplification at
a relatively constant temperature without any
substantial temperature change during the entire
process. Thus, there is absolutely no basis for a
suggestion that the Davey claim is obvious in view
of the Burg claim.
17. In a statement submitted by the examiner (attached
to Paper 1), there is no prior art cited to explain why it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007