Appeal No. 2006-3207 Page 5
Application No. 09/565,191
The Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following three references to support his rejection
of the claims:
Kleiber WO 96/27680 Sept. 12, 1996
Lee US 5,847,162 Dec. 8, 1998
Matthews and Kricka, “Analytical Strategies for the Use of DNA Probes,” 169
Analytical Biochemistry 1-25 (1988)
Kleiber discloses known techniques for detecting nucleotide sequences,
including point mutations. Kleiber at 1-2. Kleiber utilizes “nucleic acid analogs,”
described as “non-naturally occurring molecules that can detect nucleic acids by means
of base pairings.” Id. at 4. The nucleic acid analog sequence is “preferably at least 8
bases long and, more preferably, between 8 and 25 bases long.” Id at 5. Further,
“uncharged nucleic acid analogs are especially preferred.” Id. Thus, Kleiber’s nucleic
acid analogs encompass Appellants’ PNAs. See id. (citing several publications relating
to “PNA”). Kleiber describes the advantages of using his nucleic acid analogs instead
of oligonucleotides, particularly when they are uncharged. Id. at 3.
Kleiber also describes a composition of 4 probes (as required by some of the
claims). Three are unlabeled PNA probes and the fourth is a labeled DNA probe. The
Examiner admits that Kleiber does not disclose labeled PNA probes. Answer at 7. All
of the pending claims require at least one labeled PNA probe.
In Kleiber, the absence of such a teaching appears to be due to Kleiber’s
analytical approach to solving the discrimination problem identified in the prior art, i.e.,
discriminating between a point mutation and its non-mutated, wild-type sequence. See,
e.g., Kleiber at 1. Kleiber affixes the PNAs that differ by one or two positions to a solid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007