Appeal 2006-0592
Application 10/278,274
• Rinsing the oxidizing solution from the surface of the substrate
(Earhart Col. 7, ll. 7-9; Claim 10). According to the Examiner,
this particular rinsing step is performed before activating
(deblocking) the blocked monomers, and so meets the washing
aspect of step (d) of the claimed method. However, the
Examiner acknowledges that Earhart does not specify any
particular washing or rinsing agent (Office Action 9).
• Contacting the substrate displaying blocked nucleoside
monomers with an activating (deblocking) solution comprising
3% trichloroacetic acid in toluene (Earhart Col. 7, ll. 7-11;
Claim 9). According to the Examiner, this meets step (e) of the
claimed method (Office Action 8). Further, there is no dispute
that toluene is an organic solvent with a vapor pressure at STP
of less than about 13 KPa.
• Removing excess deblocking solution. That is, the Examiner
concedes that Earhart “is not explicit in disclosing that excess
deblocking solution is removed,” but argues that Earhart
“applies the deblocking solution prior to adding [ ] additional 5’
blocked nucleotide monomers, which would necessarily require
the removal of the excess deblocking solution” (Office Action
8). According to the Examiner, Earhart therefore meets the
“removal of excess deblocking solution” aspect of step (f) of
the claimed method (id.). The Examiner acknowledges that
Earhart does not disclose removing the excess deblocking
solution by allowing it to drip away (id. at 9).
• Finally, Earhart teaches reiterating steps (b) through (f) to
elongate the chains of monomers to form a polymer array
(Earhart passim; Fig. 15A). According to the Examiner, this
meets step (g) of the claimed invention.
In addition, the Examiner notes that Earhart, in discussing a “capping”
step (performed prior to each round of deblocking, and recited in certain of
the present dependent claims, e.g, present claims 4 and 16), teaches that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013