Ex Parte Regnier et al - Page 10




             Appeal No. 2005-1216                                                                                    
             Application No. 10/117,453                                                                              
             V.  Obviousness                                                                                         
                    The examiner argues that the teachings of Hillenkamp I, Hillenkamp II and Vestal                 
             “differ from the instant invention in failing to teach sample support surfaces comprising               
             polymers, biopolymers, reactants, or nucleotide probes further having areas less than                   
             about 10,000 µm2.”  Answer, p. 9.  In this regard, the examiner points out that                         
             Fodor discloses “substrates with wells, raised regions, etched trenches, or the like. . . .             
             [where] [i]n preferred embodiments the area [of the exposed regions are] less than                      
             10,000 µm2 or more preferably 100 µm2.”  Id.  The examiner concludes that                               
                           [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time              
                    the invention was made to configure a sample holder comprising areas less than                   
                    about 1,000 µm2 comprising various known reactants as taught by Fodor et al. in                  
                    the samples [sic, sample] holders taught by Hillenkamp [I], Hillenkamp [II], or                  
                    Vestal in order to configure sample holders capable of multiple different and                    
                    diverse sample analysis/sequencing in rapid detection systems.  See Fodor et al.                 
                    column 3 lines 1-3.                                                                              
                           A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize                
                    such configuration in order to analyze multiple binding sample sets including a                  
                    plurality of small peptides to explore the relationship between structure and                    
                    function in biology [Answer, pp. 9-10].                                                          
                    We find the examiner’s position untenable.                                                       
                    It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under 35 U.S.C.                  
             § 103 to establish a prima facie case.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d                   
             1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,                      
             787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  It is the examiner’s responsibility to show that some objective               
             teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally available [in the               
             art] would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references to arrive at             

                                                         10                                                          





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007