Appeal 2007-0537
Application 10/102,902
The Rejection of Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under § 103 based on Cornilescu, Gilhuijs, and
Aude. “Claim 5 is identical to claim 1 with the additional limitation of
cluster analysis to determine molecular structure.” (Answer 13.) Aude
teaches that cluster analysis of protein sequences “has been commonly used
by biologists for a long time.” (FF 21; Answer 13.) Appellants do not
respond to this finding. Rather, they state Aude “merely discloses an
application of a pyramidal clustering algorithm for biological objects”
without providing any reason why the skilled artisan would not have utilized
clustering analysis to determine molecular structure. (App. Br. 35.)
Appellants argue that Aude does not address the deficiencies of
Cornilescu and Gilhuijs with respect to the claim limitations that appear in
both claims 1 and 5. As we previously found Cornilescu and Gilhuijs teach
or suggest these claim limitations, it is unnecessary for us to address this
argument again.
Appellants also argue Aude would not have been combined with
Cornilescu and Gilhuijs, but do not give any reason. (App. Br. 34.) We
agree with the Examiner that the combination is an appropriate one. Thus,
based on our findings and those of the Examiner, we conclude the invention
of claim 5 would have been obvious in view of the cited references.
CONCLUSION
In summary, given the teachings of the cited references and
Appellants’ failure to limit the scope of their claims, we affirm the § 103(a)
rejections of all the pending claims.
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013