Appeal 2007-1824
Application 10/639,718
Claims 16, 17, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lahiri, Matray, Jordan, and
Schweitzer. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand
or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we limit our
discussion to representative claim 16. Claim 16 depends from and limits the
method of claim 1 to further require providing at least two receptors co-
immobilized within a single microspot, in combination with a two-color
detection technique, to at least double the capacity of probe elements.
The Examiner relies on Lahiri, Matray, and Jordan as discussed above
(Answer 10). In addition, the Examiner points out that Lahiri teaches the
use of an array that comprises more than one protein in each microspot (id.;
Lahiri 3-4: ¶ 0048). The Examiner recognizes, however, that the
combination of Lahiri, Matray, and Jordan fails to teach a method utilizing a
two-color detection technique (Answer 10). The Examiner relies on
Schweitzer to make up for this deficiency in the combination of Lahiri,
Matray, and Jordan.
The Examiner finds that Schweitzer teaches “that a two-color labeling
system is used with a pure fluorescein or pure Cy3 spectra, in order for
detecting two (or more) proteins simultaneously” (Answer 10-11). More
specifically, Schweitzer teaches the use of a two-color labeling system for
detecting two different proteins in an array (Schwitzer 10118: left column,
2nd paragraph).
Based on this evidence, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify the method taught by the combination of Lahiri, Matray, and Jordan
to include a two-color labeling system, as taught by Schweitzer, to detect at
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013