Appeal 2007-2448
Application 10/192,352
letters, symbols or colors in a coded combination (refers to instantly claimed
‘optical encoding’), and they identif[y] the unique chemical compound in
each reaction zone (refers to instantly claimed ‘biomolecules being
identified by said optical encoding’)” (Answer 4, 18-19).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. We note that the portions
of Kobylecki identified by the Examiner disclose applying optical indicia to
the various reaction zones, so as to identify the molecule attached to each
unique zone. However, claim 2 requires the arrayed beads to have different
optical encoding that identifies the molecules attached to the beads. None of
the portions of Kobylecki cited by the Examiner discloses a bead having
optical encoding that identifies the biomolecule attached to it. Nor do we
see any other disclosures in Kobylecki that would remedy this deficiency.
Therefore, because Kobylecki does not disclose all of the limitations
in claim 2, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of that claim.
We also reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 26-29, which depend
from claim 2 and include all of its limitations.
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 2, 9, 24, 26-29, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kobylecki and Goldberg (Answer 6-11).2 Claims 2, 26-29,
and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kobylecki and
2 The Examiner also relied on Clerc to establish that deep reactive ion
etching, recited in claim 24, “is a well known method of scribing in the
semiconductor industry” (Answer 9-10). Claim 24 depends from claim 2.
Because the limitations of claim 2 are dispositive of the obviousness
rejection, we do not discuss this reference further.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013