Appeal No. 2002-0780 Page 2
Application No. 09/128,340
Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A method for disrupting cells comprising:
providing a sonic bath comprising a first liquid;
placing into said first liquid a vessel comprising cells in a second
liquid at an alkaline pH; and
subjecting said cells to ultrasonic energy from said sonic bath of
sufficient power and duration to cause disruption of said cells in the
absence of beads.
8. A method for disrupting cells by applying ultrasonic energy to a sample
of cells in a first liquid, wherein the surface tension of said first liquid is
reduced.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Robbins et al. (Robbins) 3,887,431 Jun. 3, 1975
Robson et al. (Robson) 5,376,527 Dec. 27, 1994
Buck et al. (Buck), “Rapid, Simple Method for Treating Clinical Specimens
Containing Mycobacterium tuberculosis To Remove DNA for Polymerase Chain
Reaction,” J. Clin. Micro., Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 1331-34 (1992)
The reference relied upon by appellant is:
Murphy et al. (Murphy) 5,374,522 Dec. 20, 1994
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Buck in view of Robson and Robbins.
DISCUSSION
Buck:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), Buck teaches “a method for
disrupting Mycobacterium tuberculosis cells using ultrasonic energy without
beads” by “providing a sonic bath comprising a first liquid (i.e.[,] dish of water
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007