Appeal No. 2006-0258 Page 9
Application No. 09/755,747
According to appellant (Brief, page 13, emphasis removed), “the probe
DNA is explicitly stated in Jordan et al. as forming a “probe DNA monolayer.”
(See Jordan et al., page 4940, right-hand column, middle of first full paragraph.)”
In response, the examiner finds (Answer, page 17), “[a]ppellant ignores the plain
statement of Jordan that “[t]he SPR signal resulted from hybridization onto
immobilized probes is further amplified by the formation of streptavidin/DNA
multilayers which grow by a combination of DNA hybridization and biotin-
streptavidin binding (see abstract of Jordan).” Upon review of Jordan, we find
that these statements by the examiner and appellant are both correct and are not
in conflict. Further, while Jordan refers to immobilization on a gold surface and
not a microtiter plate, we believe that some explanation is necessary to dispel the
conflict created on this record. With reference to figure 1 of Jordan, we note that
a “probe monolayer” is formed by adsorbing probe DNA onto the gold surface.
Notwithstanding any other step, this first step of adsorbing probe DNA onto the
gold surface results in the formation of a “probe monolayer.” Accordingly,
appellant is correct. Now, in a subsequent step, biotinylated complements (e.g.
biotinylated DNA) is hybridized to the probe DNA monolayer. Jordon, page
1440, second column, first full paragraph. The result is a probe DNA –
biotinylated complements multilayer. Accordingly, the examiner is correct.
For illustrative purposes, let’s consider this analysis in the context of a
streptavidin coated microtiter plate. Assume that a monolayer of streptavidin is
coated onto a microtiter plate. Then single DNA strands are attached to the
microtiter plate using streptavidin as a linker. For clarity, this means that each
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007