Appeal 2007-2363
Application 10/253,967
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Guo.
Appellants Group the claims into two Groups: Group I comprising
claim 1 and the claims dependent thereon, i.e., claims 2-6, and 8, of which
we choose claim 1 to be representative (Br.1 8),2 and Group II comprising
claim 9 and the claims dependent thereon, i.e., claims 10-20 (Br. 14), of
which claim 9 is representative.
Guo is relied upon for teaching:
Contacting a sample suspected of containing said target
nucleic acid sequence with a diagnostic probe under hybridizing
conditions (see col. 3, line 63-67) wherein said probe comprises
a first probe region at its 5'-end that is substantially
complementary to a first target region and a second probe
region located 3' to said first probe and is substantially
complementary to a second target region, wherein the first and
second probe regions may be separated by a spacer region and
an intervening sequence (artificial mismatch sequence),
wherein the spacer forms a non self hybridized loop (see fig. 1,
the probe having a first and a second probe regions
complementary to a first and a second target regions of a target
separated by a one base mismatch (spacer) and two-base
mismatches forming a non self-hybridized loop, [(]see col. 2,
line 64-67, col. 4, line 47-67, col. 5, line 1, col. 7, line 16-44)
under said conditions whereby the first and second probe
regions only stably hybridize to form a stable probe: target
complex, but wherein under said conditions the probe is not
stably hybridized to the target strand to form a probe:target
hybrid detectable above a threshold indicative of stable
1 All references to the Brief (Br.) are to the Appeal Brief dated October 10,
2006.
2 Claim 20, which depends from claim 1, and from claim 9, is also included
here to the extent that it depends from claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013