Appeal No. 2006-0227 Page 12
Application No. 10/121,264
We also disagree with this proposed interpretation of the claim. As Appellants
note, the specification defines a substrate as “an object onto which genetic material may
be deposited.” Chu states that probes (genetic material) can be predried on the wells of
the tray. See col. 33, lines 18-20: “In a preferred embodiment, the probes are predried
onto the 8 wells 410 of the tray 400 with probes for 3 different chromosomes in each
well 410.” Thus, the tray is an object onto which genetic material may be deposited,
and the tray meets the specification’s definition of a substrate.
We affirm the rejection of claim 40 as anticipated by Chu. The examiner also
rejected claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kausch.2 However, since
we have already found that the claim is anticipated by Chu, we need not consider
whether it is also anticipated by Kausch.
3. Obviousness based on Chu and Sabatini
The examiner rejected claims 23, 25-28, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Chu and Sabatini.3 We agree with the examiner that claim 23 is
unpatentable in view of the cited references. In fact, we find that Chu anticipates claim
23.
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 23 is directed to a device
comprising an object that includes a region having a layer of a substance that can
transport genetic material when the substance is moved, and that has deposited on it or
in it at least two chromosomes. Such a device is shown in Chu’s Figures 16B and 16C:
2 Kausch et al., U.S. Patent 5,665,582, issued September 9, 1997.
3 Sabatini, U.S. Patent 6,544,790, issued April 8, 2003 (application filed Sept. 18, 2000).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007