Appeal No. 2006-1547 Page 17
Application No. 10/114,668
As discussed previously, Shipwash discloses the use of jet-pulse technology to
deliver samples and reagents to microwells. Shipwash, ¶ 179. The examiner argued
that it would have been obvious to have applied this technology to deliver all the recited
reagents in view of Shipwash’s suggestion. In rebuttal, Appellant stated that Shipwash
failed “to teach or suggest pulse jet-deposition of a polymerase,” but failed to explain
why motivation was lacking when it was admitted that this technology had been used to
deliver protein reagents. Appeal Brief, page 21. Compare Specification, ¶ 5. Moreover,
Appellant did not point out why it was not obvious to have used pulse-jet technology to
deliver any of the other recited reagents.
In view of the admission that pulse-jet had been utilized for protein deposition,
and Shipwash’s express acknowledgement that it can be used in micro-array assays,
we agree that the skilled worker would have been motivated with a reasonable
expectation of success to have modified Kosak in view of Yu by utilizing pulse-jet
technology to deliver certain reagents for the advantages described in Shipwash. Thus,
we affirm the rejection of claims 29-38.
Church
Claims 29-38 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Kosak
in view of Yu and further in view of Church.
Beginning in ¶ 260 of the Church published patent application, a multiplex PCR
method is described. The method utilizes microarrays of immobilized primers. Church,
¶ 262. It is stated in the Church disclosure at ¶ 263:
There are at least two ways primer pairs may be distributed. First, two
presynthesized to Acrydite primers may be codeposited (Kenney et al., 1998,
Biotechniques 25: 516-521; Rehman et al., 1999, Nucl. Acids. Res. 27: 649-655),
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007