Appeal No. 2006-0673 Page 14
Application No. 09/919,555
from where an array is fabricated.4 Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 2, 4-16, and 45-54, which fall therewith, as anticipated by the reference.
B. ANTICIPATION BY CATTELL '351
The appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 47-54, which are subject to the same
grounds of rejection, as a group. (Reply Br. at 14, 15, and 23.) We again select claim 1
as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the group.
The examiner finds, "Cattell discloses . . . saving in a memory array related data
said data comprising instructions for reading the array or instruction [for] processing the
array (Column 5, lines 41-48) . . . and forwarding the array related data to a remote
location (Column 3, line 55-Column 4, line 9 and 33-43 and Claims 10- 11). . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellants argue, "the '351 identifier provides layout
information that is used by the processor in reading the array, but not positive
4 Cattell '915 further explains that "[a]t the user station of FIG. 5, the resulting
package 340 is then received from the remote fabrication station. A sample, for
example a test sample, is exposed to the array 12 on the array unit 15 received in
package 340. Following hybridization and washing in a known manner, the array
unit 15 is then inserted into holder 161 in scanner 160 for reading of the array. . . ."
(Col. 13, ll. 50-56.) More specifically, "[p]rocessor 162 may cause the array to be read,
or the data obtained from reading to be processed (which term includes interpretation of
data), (510) using the retrieved first and updated feature characteristic sets." (Col. 14,
ll. 26-30.)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007