Appeal No. 2003-1738 Page 6
Application No. 08/739,396
Rava does not suggest the method that is defined by claim 37: attaching
each probe to a separate support, then dividing those supports into smaller “tiles”
and placing the tiles onto a support to form an array. Granted, Rava discloses
arrays that are similar to those resulting from the process claimed here. See,
e.g., Rava’s Figure 3, which shows a solid support with multiple chips attached.
In what may be its most relevant disclosure (column 4, lines 1-25), Rava
discusses “Biological Chip Plates” that comprise multiple “biological chips in
which the probe arrays of each chip is separated from the probe array of other
chips.” Rava also discloses that the chips can be produced on wafers. See lines
13-18:
Wafer: A substrate having a surface to which a plurality of probe
arrays are attached. On a wafer, the arrays are physically
separated by a distance of at least about a millimeter, so that
individual chips can be made by dicing a wafer or otherwise
physically separating the array [sic, wafer?] into units having a
probe array.
Taken in isolation, this sounds a lot like the method defined by claim 37.
The problem, for the examiner’s rejection, is that the “chips” that Rava cuts from
the wafers are different from the “tiles” of the instant claims. Rava’s chips each
comprise a full array of attached probes. See column 4, lines 4-5 (“Biological
Chip: A substrate having a surface to which one or more arrays of probes is
attached.”) and lines 1-3 (“Array: A collection of probes at least two of which are
different, arranged in a spa[t]ially defined and physically addressable manner.”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007