Appeal No. 2004-0727 Page 2
Application No. 09/690,173
(a) an oligonucleotie promoter-primer comprising an RNA
polymerase promoter sequence;
(b) an RNaseH- polymerase; and
(c) an RnaseH+ polymerase.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Wang et al. (Wang) 5,932,451 Aug. 3, 1999
Phillips et al. (Phillips), “Antisense RNA Amplification: A Linear Amplification
Method for Analyzing the mRNA Population from Single Living Cells,” Methods: A
companion to Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 10, pp. 283-88 (1996)
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 32-481 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Wang.
Claims 32-36 and 39-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Phillips.
We affirm the rejection over Wang. Having disposed of all claims on
appeal, we find it unnecessary to reach the merits of Phillips.
CLAIM GROUPING
According to appellant (Brief, page 5), “[c]laims 32-48 stand together.”
Since all claims stand or fall together, we limit our discussion to representative
independent claim 41. Claims 32-40 and 42-48 will stand or fall together with
claim 41. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
1 We note that appellant’s statement of the claims under rejection is incorrect. According to
appellant (Brief, page 4), Wang was applied to claims 38 and 41-48. To the contrary, as set forth
in the Final Office Action (Paper No. 11, page 2), “[c]laims 32-37 and 39-40 remain rejected and
claims 38, and 41-48 are [rejected] under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Wang….” We
note that in appellant’s response immediately preceding the Final Office Action, claim 38 was
amended and claims 41-48 were added. See Paper No. 10, pages 1-2. The Advisory Action
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007