to maintain a constant scale factor in the scanner despite reductions in laser power
resulting from laser degradation.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of reducing the effect on scale factor during
use of an instrument for reading a biopolymer array when a control point of said
instrument is adjusted from a first value to a second value, said method
comprising:
(a) adjusting said control point from said first value to
said second value; and
(b) adjusting detector gain of a detector of said
instrument in a manner sufficient to reduce an effect on scale factor resulting
from said adjustment.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Bengtsson 6,078,390 Jun. 20, 2000
Sandstrom 6,545,758 Apr. 08, 2003
(filed Oct. 05, 2000)
Steve Lawrence and C. Lee Giles (Lawrence), “Searching the World Wide Web,”
SCIENCE, vol. 280, 98-100 (April 1998).
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 16 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bengtsson. Claims 1, 10, and 17 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bengtsson in view of Sandstrom. In a
separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 8, 12, 14, and 15 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bengtsson in view of
Lawrence.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is
made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their respective details.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed September 6, 2005. In response to the Examiner’s Answer
mailed December 20, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed February 17, 2006 which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication mailed March 2, 2006.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007