Appeal No. 2006-2851
Application No. 09/844,501
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 129, 131-133 and 152 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Grosveld taken with Li. Claims 136-142 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Grosveld taken with NEB catalog (1995). Claims 134 and 146 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Grosveld taken with Chung.
With respect to the other pending obviousness rejections before us, all rejections
stand or fall on the relevance of Grosveld to the pending claims. The examiner relies
on the NEB catalog to make up for a failure of Grosveld to teach specific restriction
enzymes (Answer, page 6), Li for a failure of Grosveld to teach a comparison of cells
from a variety of different sources (Answer, page 7), and Chung for the failure of
Grosveld to teach embedding cells in agarose prior to enzymatic cleavage (Answer,
page 9).
We do not find that either NEB catalog, Li or Chung overcome the above noted
deficiency of Grosveld and its failure to teach steps (e) and (f) of claim 123, and
therefore the rejections for obviousness over Grosveld taken with NEB catalog, Li or
Chung are reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Grosveld alone or in
view of NEB, Li or Chung are reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007