Appeal 2006-0592
Application 10/278,274
This argument is irrelevant and therefore unpersuasive. According to
the specification, depurination is due to the action of the acid deblocking
agent (Specification 16, ¶ 57), and Earhart already discloses dissolving the
acid in toluene to form the deblocking solution.
Appellants also argue that Earhart “does not disclose washing the
oxidized surface of the substrate with an organic solvent” (Brief 9), while
Lowe and Perbost “disclose that toluene may be used to wash . . . a silanized
surface . . . generated when the glass slide is being prepared and prior to
any nucleic acid deposition, while the oxidized surface of the present claims
is generated during synthesis of the nucleic acids and after the glass slide
has been initially prepared” (id. at 10). Thus, Appellants contend that “the
combined teachings of [Earhart, Lowe and Perbost] fail to teach or suggest
contacting an oxidized surface with an organic solvent, such as toluene, and
then contacting the surface with a deblocking agent in the same organic
solvent” (id. at 8).
We have carefully considered this argument, and we agree that
Perbost and Lowe only disclose using toluene in the process of silanizing a
substrate prior to building nucleotide polymers on the silanized substrate.
However, that fact does not persuade us that the Examiner’s conclusion is in
error. We note that Earhart uses toluene after each round of nucleoside
application and oxidation - thus, we find that Earhart teaches that toluene is
a suitable solvent for contact with an oxidized surface displaying bound
nucleotides. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious, and “one of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have been motivated
to use [ ] toluene (an organic [solvent] which Earhart [ ] already employed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013