Appeal No. 2003-1103 Page 3
Application No. 09/212,029
established. Id., page 3. “PCR amplification has been applied to the diagnosis
of genetic disorders . . ., the detection of nucleic acid sequences of pathogenic
organisms in clinical samples . . ., the genetic identification of forensic samples,
e.g. sperm . . ., the analysis of mutations in activated oncogenes . . . and in many
aspects of molecular cloning.” Id., page 4. The invention:
provide[s] analytical systems with optimal reaction environments
that can analyze microvolumes of sample, detect very low
concentrations of a polynucleotide, and produce analytical results
rapidly[,] . . . provide[s] easily mass produced, disposable, small
(e.g., less than 1 cc in volume) devices having mesoscale
functional elements capable of rapid, automated PCR analyses of a
preselected cell or cell-free sample, in a range of applications[, and]
. . . provide[s] a family of such devices that individually can be used
to implement a range of rapid clinical tests, e.g., tests for viral or
bacterial infection, tests for cell culture contaminants, or tests for
the presence of recombinant DNA or a gene in a cell, and the like.
Id., page 5.
Discussion
The claims stand or fall together because appellants have not argued to
the contrary in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. Also, because multiple
claims have been rejected on the same basis, we have chosen claim 44 as
representative of the rejected claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
1. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The examiner rejected claims 12-15, 23, 39, 40, and 44-47 as anticipated
by Schnipelsky. Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The examiner characterized
Schnipelsky as disclosing a device meeting the limitations of the instant claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007