Appeal No. 2002-0780 Page 5
Application No. 09/128,340
before it was subjected to analysis”2. In contrast, Robson discloses in examples
1, 6 and 7 (columns 8, 9 and 10) that their heat treatment methodology released
sufficient amounts of DNA.
Robbins:
The examiner finds (Answer, page 5), Robbins teaches “a method for
disrupting cells using ultrasonic energy (i.e.[,] sonic disintegration) and adjusting
the disrupted cells at an alkaline pH between 8 and 11, and a temperature of 4°C
[sic] to 60°C….”
As we understand this reference, Robbins discloses a yeast protein isolate
with reduced nucleic acid content and a process of preparing the isolate. See
Title and Abstract. While the examiner recognizes that Robbins disrupt cells at
“an alkaline pH between 8 and 11” the method of disruption was not by
sonication but was instead by homogenization. See column 3, lines 28-47 (“[t]he
presently preferred method is homogenization … in our process the homogenate
is adjusted to a pH of above 5.5 preferably between 8 and 11….”). Furthermore,
in contrast to the methods of Buck and Robson which were interested disrupting
Mycobacterium tuberculosis cells for DNA analysis, for Robbins among “[t]he
most important factor[s] is to rupture a majority of the [yeast] cells under
conditions such that (1) the endogenous nuclease is not destroyed….” Column
3, lines 25-27. Robbins intended to preserve the activity of the endogenous
nuclease activity, because a “principal object [of their invention] is to provide a
2 We also note that in each sonication example, Robson provide no suggestions of a sonic bath,
nor do they identify the power setting of the sonicator used.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007