Appeal No. 2001-1880
Application No. 09/273,835
In view of our claim interpretation, we find the examiner has not adequately
addressed appellant’s arguments concerning differences of the claimed method from
the disclosure of Arlinghaus. Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims in view of Arlinghaus.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over
Arlinghaus in view of Rothberg.
The disclosure of Arlinghaus is provided in the Examiner’s Answer, and
discussed above. Rothberg is relied on by the examiner only for the disclosure of the
use of chosen primers containing a sequence for type IIS restriction enzyme (Claim 4).
Answer, page 5. We do not find that Rothberg overcomes the noted deficiencies of
Arlinghaus. The rejection of the claims is reversed.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Arlinghaus and
Rothberg in further view of Lizardi.
The disclosure of Arlinghaus and Rothberg is provided in the Examiner’s
Answer, and discussed above. Lizardi is relied on by the examiner for the disclosure of
the use of isothermal rolling circle amplification. Answer, page 7. We do not find that
Lizardi overcomes the noted deficiencies of Arlinghaus and Rothberg. The rejection of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007