Appeal No. 2003-0903 Page 5
Application No. 09/534,366
on two separate sample mixtures (i.e., a reference sample and an experimental
sample). The reverse transcription reaction includes all ten of Fislage’s RT
primers together with three of Fislage’s PCR primers (designated PCR1, PCR3,
and PCR5 in the specification). The PCR reaction in the claimed method
includes all ten RT primers and all ten PCR primers. Following PCR
amplification, the “presence or level of mRNA” in the two samples is compared.
The examiner rejected the claims as obvious. All of the examiner’s
obviousness rejections depend on the combination of Liang ‘672 and Fislage,
and therefore we can consider them together. The examiner characterized Liang
‘672 as teaching a differential display method. See the Examiner’s Answer,
pages 4-5. The examiner also noted that Liang teaches that more than one
primer can be used in the RT and/or PCR reactions. See the Examiner’s
Answer, page 6. The examiner also quoted Liang’s guidance that
[t]he use of more than one of each primer will increase the number
of mRNAs identified in each reaction and the total number of
primers to be used will be determined based upon the desired
method of separating the cDNAs such that it remains possible to
fully isolate each individual cDNA.
Liang ‘672, column 7, lines 37-42.
The examiner conceded that Liang ‘672 does not teach the specific
primers recited in the claims, and relied on Fislage to make up for that deficiency.
He concluded that it would have been obvious
to combine the differential display using primer mixture method of
Liang with the primer group of Fislage used by Fislage in differential
display since Fislage states “In general, primers were selected for a
high frequency of occurrence within the coding genome of E. coli.
Furthermore, a high GC content for the 10 mers and a lower GC
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007