Appeal No. 2003-1105 Page 2
Application No. 09/738,461
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A method for detecting the end-point for PCR DNA
amplification comprising:
providing at least a pair of electrodes in a fluidic channel. [sic]
producing an electric field across the electrodes,
directing a fluid containing single stranded DNA segments through
the fluidic channel,
directing at least one ionically labeled probe through the fluidic
channel for attachment to a complementary DNA segment causing
the release of a labeled ion,
trapping the labeled ion in the electric field causing a conductivity
change in the fluid between the electrodes,
measuring the change in conductivity as a change in the
impedance between the pair of electrodes, and
using the impedance measurement to detect the presence of the
trapped labeled ion for detecting the end-point for PCR DNA
amplification.
No prior art is relied upon by the examiner.
GROUNDS OF REJECTION1
I. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite because the claimed method does not recite
amplification steps.
II. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite with regard to the “ionically labeled probe.”
1 Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in the
recitation of the phrase “[t]he improvement of [c]laim…” as it appears in the preamble of each
claim. We note appellants’ statement (Brief, page 8) that they are “willing to amend [c]laims 7-9 to
read -- [t]he improvement of the method of [c]laim 6.” This language appears to correspond to the
examiner’s suggested claim language. See Answer, page 7. Accordingly, we encourage the
examiner and appellants to work together to resolve this issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007