Appeal No. 2006-3105
Application No. 09/397,494
taught by Layne. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue
that the addition of Layne does nothing to supply this absent teaching (Br. 8). We
assume that Appellants intended to state McCasky Feazel rather than Layne. Appellants
maintain that the probe array experimental techniques of McCasky Feazel and Dehlinger
stand in stark contrast to the conventional microtiter technology employed by Layne (Br.
9). We do not find this argument commensurate in scope with the language of
independent claim 26 which does not address the details of the experiment, the hardware
probe structure used in the experiment, or the quantity of data in the results. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Therefore, we do not find that Appellants have
adequately rebutted the prima facie of obviousness and have not shown that the Examiner
relied upon impermissible hindsight, and we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 26 and its dependent claims.
With respect to the Appellants’ headings D-J and Appellants’ groupings,
Appellants rely upon the arguments previously made with respect to independent claims
26 and 32 and to the combination of the references and the quantity of results from the
experiment (Br. 9-12). We have addressed those arguments above and have not found
them persuasive. Therefore, Appellants general reliance thereon does not persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 26-32 and 34-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007