Appeal No. 2004-2079 Page 5
Application No. 09/754,958
However, on this record, the examiner finds (id.), the use of the term “or” in
reference to the structure of Formula II or Formula III, coupled with the use of the
term “and” in reference to the recitation “A-B-D- and -D'-C,” confusing. According
to appellants (Brief, page 8), the After Final Amendment filed June 10, 2003,
mooted this issue. We disagree.
Claim 17 is drawn to compounds comprising structures of formula II or
formula III. Claim 17 defines the structures of formula II and formula III as A-B-D-
C-D', A-B-D-, and -D'-C. While far from being perfectly clear, one possible
interpretation of claim 17 is that it is drawn to compounds comprising the
structures A-B-D-C-D', A-B-D-, or -D'-C.
In this regard, we direct attention to the compound of claim 17 comprising
the structure “A-B-D-.” As defined by claim 17, moiety “A” is a resin, polymer,
composite, support or surface. Stated differently, moiety “A” is a solid support.
See e.g., Brief, page 33. As defined by claim 17, moiety “D” is “a bond….” So
far, as defined by claim 17, the compound comprising the structure “A-B-D-” has
a solid support on one end and a bond on the other end.
Claim 17 defines the middle of this compound, moiety “B”, as “a linker
allowing cleavage of fluorescent conjugates of formula II or of formula-III for
liberation of the D and C containing fragments,” emphasis added. Moiety “C,”
however, is not part of the compound comprising “A-B-D-”. As appellants explain
(Brief, page 6), “‘C’ makes the claimed compounds fluorescent.” Accordingly,
without moiety “C” the claimed compounds are not fluorescent. Moiety “D”, a
3 Citing two references, appellants assert (Brief, page 3), “[s]uch solid support [sic] and specific
linking sites for linking chemical compounds to such solid support [sic] are known.…”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007