Appeal No. 2006-0673 Page 17
Application No. 09/919,555
C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER PERTTUNEN AND ELLSON
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 15-19 and 23-24.) We again select
claim 1 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the group.
The examiner finds, "Perttunen et al teach . . . saving in a memory array related
data said data comprising instructions for reading the array or instruction [for]
processing the array (Column 3, lines 54-67) wherein the array and array related data
is utilized by an end user (Column 8, lines 38-41 and Column 9, lines 63-
Column 10, line[ ] 2) which clearly suggests that the array is sent from the place of
origin. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 11-12.) He further finds that Ellson teaches "saving
in a memory array related data and shipping the array and forwarding the array related
data to a remote location i.e. to [a] shipping address contained in the machine readable
information (¶ 8)." (Id. at 12.) The appellants make the following arguments.
[T]he information saved in memory of Perttunen is simply array mapping
information, i.e., the identification of each moiety and its specific location
on the array. In contrast, the information saved in memory of the claimed
invention of present application consists of instructions for selecting
one or more machine readable algorithms for use by the processor on
how to read an array or how to process data from a read array. . . .
. . .
[T]he disclosure of Ellson is limited to an array of molecular moieties on a
substrate, where the substrate also contains machine-readable
information, which includes shipping and billing information, the identity of
the molecular moieties, information relating to the means by which the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007