Appeal 2006-0592
Application 10/278,274
“[t]he remaining steps (oxidizing, deblocking, and washing) are performed
according to conventional oligonucleotide synthesis” (Earhart Col. 16, ll.
8-10; Answer 6).
Finally, the Examiner relies on Perbost’s “method of synthesizing an
array of polynucleotide[s],” wherein “after treating the array with silanizing
agent [dissolved] in toluene, the array is washed and dried with toluene”
(Office Action 10), and Lowe’s “microarray fabrication method[ ],” wherein
“toluene [is used] for washing steps” (id.), as evidence that toluene is a
conventional washing reagent in methods of making polynucleotide arrays.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “that the reagent toluene which was already
employed as a dissolving reagent in making the activating [(deblocking)]
reagent (of Earhart [ ]) would have been useful in the ‘rinsing’ or washing
step of Earhart” (Answer 8) - corresponding to instant steps (e) and (d),
repectively.
Appellants argue that “[t]he present invention is based on the
realization that by using an organic solvent, such as toluene, to limit
evaporation, one can reduce depurination reactions on the substrate surface
and therefore obtain better arrays” (Brief 14). “In particular, the
specification discloses . . . [that] [a] feature of the subject methods is that the
deblocking solution includes an acid present in an organic solvent that has a
sufficiently low vapor pressure such that . . . depurination reactions resulting
from the increase in effective acid deblocking agent during evaporation of
the solvent from the surface do not occur to any significant extent” (id.).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013