Appeal 2007-1689
Application 10/431,627
Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of an apparatus for automatic
polynucleotide synthesis, and is representative of the claims on appeal:
1. An apparatus for maintaining a closed continuous anhydrous
system for automated polynucleotide synthesis, comprising: a) a plurality of
moisture-resistant reagent containers, b) a dry box capable of forming a seal
over a synthesis platform of an automated polynucleotide synthesizer, c)
moisture-resistant tubing connecting said reagent containers to said dry box,
d) a reagent gas feed connecting said reagent containers to a gas, wherein
said gas pressurizes said reagent containers, and e) a digital gas regulator
connected to said reagent gas feed, wherein said gas regulator maintains
constant pressure in said reagent containers.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Penhasi1 US 3,725,010 Apr. 3, 1975
Bardman US 2003/0236374 A1 Dec. 25, 2003
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) advanced on appeal (Br. 4):
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 13, and 15 through 20 as unpatentable over
Penhasi (Answer 3); and
claims 4 and 14 as unpatentable over Penhasi in view of Bardman (id. 5).
Appellants argue the claims in each ground of rejection as a group
(Br. in entirety). Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims 1 and 4.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
1 We find that in fact US 3,725,010 issued to Harry A. Penhasi (see Penhasi
col. 1, l. 4).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013