Appeal No. 2003-1738 Page 7
Application No. 08/739,396
In the instant claims, by contrast, each tile must have only a single type of
probe attached. The claimed method comprises “for each species of said
plurality of bioorganic molecules, constructing a batch of separate tiles by . . .
attaching said species [and] . . . subdividing . . . to form a plurality of separate
tiles.” Thus, Rava’s disclosure of dividing “wafers” into multiple “chips”, each
comprising an “array” would not have suggested the instantly claimed method.
Nor do we find the method suggested by other parts of the reference.
Rava’s disclosure with regard to methods of making biological chips is limited to
in situ synthesis methods such as those discussed in the background section of
the instant specification. See Rava, columns 9-10. Rava nowhere suggests
making a chip by attaching pieces of individually derivatized substrate to a solid
support.
Rava does not suggest the method defined by claim 37 and therefore
does not support a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007