Appeal No. 2006-2569 Page 5
Application No. 09/485,245
8 mer range, and that such primers would be desirable in a dried system. See id.
at 6-7. Shen, according to appellant, teaches dried 22-mer and 48-mer primers,
“but fails to suggest that such dried primers should be shortened, or, alteratively
any reason why the short primers of Godiska should be dried.” Id. at 7.
Appellant’s arguments are not found to be convincing. With respect to
appellant’s argument that Godiska and Shen fail to teach the desirability of short
primers (6-8 mers) in a dried primer system or that 6-8 mers would behave
differently with respect to self-priming activity and labeling intensity than do 9-
mers, the motivation to combine references does not have to be identical to that
of appellant to establish obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40
USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In the rejection before us, Godiska is cited
for teaching a priming reaction using random 6-mer (hexamer) primers. See
Godiska, col. 8, lines 29-30. Shen, although not teaching 6-mer to 8-mer random
primers, as noted by the rejection, teaches the desirability of providing dried
reagents. Thus, it would have been obvious to dry the reagents of Godiska as
taught by Shen to achieve the advantages of Shen of being useful in shipping
and storage of commercial preparations due to increased stability, even when
stored for prolonged periods or when stored at high temperatures.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007