Appeal 2007-2448
Application 10/192,352
single, unique chemical structure attached to that portion of paper”
(Kobylecki, col. 6, ll. 54-57).
Kobylecki also discloses
a method of preparing a laminar resin support material for use
in the synthesis of chemical compound libraries, which method
comprises affixing a layer of particulate functionalised solid
support resin material to a porous inert laminar material.
(Id. at col. 4, ll. 44-51.)
We will assume, for the sake of argument, that the functionalized
resin particles meet claim 2’s requirement for “beads.” However, Kobylecki
does not disclose that the particles have any sort of optical encoding
identifying the biomolecules that are attached to them. Rather, Kobylecki
discloses that “[i]t is an essential feature . . . that individual reaction zones
are identified, that is to say, labelled with some form of indicia which
uniquely characterises each reaction zone” (id. at col. 5, ll. 35-38).
Thus, instead of assembling an array of biomolecule-bearing beads
that have different optical encoding that identifies the attached biomolecules,
Kobylecki applies the optical indicia to the substrate’s reaction zones. We
therefore agree with Appellants that Kobylecki does not describe claim 2’s
step of “assembling bead arrays comprising many differently optically
encoded beads having biomolecules attached thereto said biomolecules
being identified by said optical encoding.”
The Examiner argues that Kobylecki discloses that step in its
disclosure that “[e]ach individual reaction zone[] comprises a particulate,
functionalized solid support resin and is uniquely label[ed]” (Answer 4, 17-
18). The Examiner urges that “[t]he unique labels comprise[] numbers,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013