Appeal No. 2006-3105
Application No. 09/397,494
We do not find to be persuasive Appellants’ arguments that the experiments and their
results would have been beyond the knowledge and level of skill of those skilled in the
art, and we find that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention that the method of independent claim 26 could be applied to a wide range of
experiments and results therefrom.
Appellants’ argument goes to the combinability of the two teachings and that it
would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have
combined the teachings due to the order of magnitude of difference in the amount of data
that Appellants maintain is transmitted over the network. We find that argument alone to
be unpersuasive since we find no express limitation in the language of independent claim
26 as to the type of probe, type of probe array experiment, the network or any other facet
of the system which would limit the extension of the method to other experiments, which
have varied or increased amounts or types of experiment results data.
We find that Layne teaches that the communication link 126 is the message
transfer modality commonly known as the Internet which is well suited for the
application described in Layne and offers global accessibility and high-speed data
transfer of “vast amounts of information.” (Layne at col. 10, ll. 16-17.) We find this
teaching and suggestion for communication to be a sufficient suggestion to increase the
amount of data transferred over the communication link. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants’ argument of a difference in magnitude of amount of data transmitted from
the probe array or probe array experiment to be persuasive.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007