Appeal 2007-2213
Application 10/355,433
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Specification states that
in “prior art in situ techniques for polynucleotide array fabrication drops of
. . . different solutions were deposited, each containing a propylene
carbonate solution saturated with one of the four nucleoside
phosphoramidites (concentration about 340 mM)” (Specification 4: 1-4).
These solutions are described in the Specification as varying in viscosity
from 5.9 to 11.7 cps (id. at 4: 10-12).
Brennan, moreover, does not describe its process as involving
saturated solutions in propylene carbonate. Brennan states that “[d]roplets
of oligonucleotide synthesis reagents in acetonitrile are applied to the dot
surfaces” (Brennan, col. 7, ll. 53-55 (emphasis added)) and:
Assembly of oligonucleotides . . . is carried out according to the
H-phosphonate procedure . . . or by the phosphoroamidite
method. Both methods are well known to those of ordinary
skill in the art. Oligonucleotide and Analogs, A Practical
Approach (F. Eckstein ed., 1991). Delivery of the appropriate
blocked nucleotides and activating agents in acetonitrile is
directed to individual dots.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 1-8 (emphasis added).) Appellants have not demonstrated
that the process described in the applied references require the high
phosphoramidite concentrations shown in the Specification’s table or that
the differences in viscosity would be observed with lower concentrations.
Moreover, the claims only recite that the drops comprise the same
concentration of probe precursor, but not that the drops comprises saturated
solutions.
In addition, Appellants argue that Okamoto describes “a single pass
process . . . [not] an iterative multi-pass process as currently claimed”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013