Ex Parte Bobrow et al - Page 6

             Appeal No. 2006-3006                                                            Page 6               
             Application No. 10/123,713                                                                           
                    Hybridization is performed by contacting the mixture of amplified RNAs                        
                    [prepared by the method at col. 65, l. 5 to col. 66, l. 10], under a cover slip,              
                    with the surface of a glass slide containing three separate dots of 2x1011                    
                    molecules of three different covalently bound 31-mer oligonucleotides (A, B,                  
                    C) . . . . The last 16 bases of each oligonucleotide are complementary to a                   
                    specific segment (4 bases+8 bases+4 bases), centered on the 8-base gap                        
                    sequence, of each of the possible amplified RNAs generated from tag                           
                    sequences A, B, or C. Hybridization is carried out for 90 minutes at 37°C.                    
                    The glass slide is washed once with 2xSSPE . . . , then washed twice with                     
                    2xSSC . . . , and then incubated with fluoresceinated avidin (5 µg/ml) in                     
                    2xSSC for 20 minutes at 30°C. The slide is washed 3 times with 2xSSC and                      
                    the surface-bound fluorescence is imaged at 530 nm using a Molecular                          
                    Dynamics Fluorimager to determine if any of tag sequences A or B or C was                     
                    amplified.                                                                                    
             Col. 66, ll. 14-31 (emphasis added).                                                                 
                    Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Lizardi utilizes a flat top surface                   
             array to fluorescently label and detected fluorescently labeled array members.                       
             Example 5 is therefore not “logically consistent only with a well plate” as they                     
             allege.  Reply Br. 2: 7.   Moreover, as indicated at col. 66, ll. 14-31 (quoted above),              
             the assay does not “result in a completely uniform test result … devoid of                           
             information” as Appellants assert.  Br. 6: 8-9.                                                      
                    We also find Appellants’ argument deficient because the Examiner has not                      
             relied on Lizardi for its teaching of an assay method, but for its description of                    
             arrays with different members.  Answer 3: 17-23.                                                     
                    Appellants’ challenge the Examiner’s finding that both Bobrow and Lizardi                     
             describe arrays of spatially separated array members as required by claim 1.                         
             Br. 6: 10-13.  Appellants rely on Fig. 29A to refute the Examiner’s findings,                        
             asserting that it depicts an antigen, “not an array.”  Br. 5.  We find this argument                 
             disingenuous.  Fig. 29A is a depiction of a single spot in an array of spatially                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013