Appeal 2007-1824
Application 10/639,718
least two proteins simultaneously (Answer 11). We find no error in the
Examiner’s prima facie case.
In response, Appellants assert that Schweitzer relates to
immunoassays with rolling circle DNA amplification which is unrelated to
the present invention (Br. 11). For the foregoing reasons, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ assertion.
On reflection, we find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Lahiri, Matray,
Jordan, and Schweitzer. Claims 17, 50, and 51 fall together with claim 16.2
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm all rejections of record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
2 To be complete, we recognize Appellants’ assertion that “Schweitzer does
not teach or suggest step (b) of claim 1 and the ‘contacting’ step and steps
(a) – (c) of claim 47. . . ” (Br. 11). For the reasons set forth herein, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that the combination of references, as
relied upon by the Examiner, fails to teach the claimed invention.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013