Appeal 2007-2213
Application 10/355,433
We are not persuaded by this argument. Brennan describes reading
the array “using scanning analyzers” (Brennan, col. 3, ll. 15-19). We
conclude that it would have been obvious to those of skill in the art to
forward the results of this determination to a remote location. See, for
example, Appellants’ Specification, which provides evidence that scanning
an array and forwarding results to a remote location are old in the art.
(Specification 20: 8-28 (“[T]he array will typically be exposed to a sample
. . . and the array then read. . . . [W]ell known array readers can be used. . . .
The results of the reading (processed or not) can be forwarded (such as by
communication) to be received at a remote location.”).)
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 5, 7, and 19 would have been obvious over Brennan and Eckstein in
view of Okamoto, which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm
the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 6, 8, and
20 fall with claims 5, 7, and 19.
We also conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case
that claim 42 would have been obvious. Brennan and Okamoto are
discussed above.
Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does Brennan or Okamoto teach or
suggest depositing drops containing different probe precursors on to the
surface of a substrate wherein the viscosities of the different drops
containing different probe precursors at the same concentration are all
within 4 cps of one another” (Br. 18). We are not persuaded by this
argument for the reasons discussed above with regard to the narrower
limitation in claim 1 that “the viscosities of the different drops containing
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013