Appeal No. 2001-0692 Page 8
Application No. 09/163,572
The manipulative steps recited in claim 1 are also met by Evans:
(1) “placing a plurality of the compounds into at least two arrays”: Evans
places mixed probes into two arrays (see Figure 2);
(2) arrays having a plurality of test zones: each of the immobilized
cosmids constitutes a separate test zone;
(3) “multiple compounds in each zone”: Evans’ method includes applying
mixed probes (i.e., a mixture of probes generated from each of
approximately 20 different cosmids) to each test zone in a matrix;
(4) “at least one identical compound in at least two arrays”: the
experiment described in Evans’ Figure 2 involves applying the probe
generated from the cosmid at row 2, column 4 to each of the two
arrays; it is the hybridization of this probe to the cosmid marked with an
arrow that identifies that cosmid as sharing sequence identity with the
row 2, column 4 cosmid;
(5) “determining the array location of each compound in each test zone”:
in Evans’ technique the same set of compounds is applied to every test
zone in a given array;
(6) “determining the response activity of the compounds in the arrays to
the testing screen”: Evans determines hybridization of the probes with
the immobilized cosmid DNA; and
(7) “ascertaining the compounds that had a positive response to the
testing screen”: the hybridizing cosmids are identified.
Thus, we conclude that Evans identically discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. Appellants have grouped claims 1-4
and 9 together on appeal. See the Appeal Brief, page 4. Therefore, claims 2-4
and 9 fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that “[t]hroughout the specification, Applicant [sic] has
indicated that the invention pertains to screening of large databases of
compounds.” Appeal Brief, page 5. Evans, by contrast, “does not have and
does not teach a testing of known compounds in a drug screening process. . . .
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007