Appeal 2007-2955
Application 10/190,425
DISCUSSION
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether profiling living cells,
using a microarray comprising binding probes deposited in a pattern on a
hydrated gel coated substrate, would have been obvious at the time of the
invention, given the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary
skill in the art, and the differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art.
The Examiner contends that “it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art . . . to use live cells in the method of either
Belov or Chang” (Answer 6), because of “[t]he advantages taught by Taylor
[ ] in the use of live cells, instead of fixed cells” (id.). In addition, the
Examiner contends the “use [of] a hydrogel in the substrate of Belov or
Chang would be obvious” (id.), because of “the advantage . . . of a hydrogel
in a substrate disclosed by Wagner” (id. at 7).
Appellants contend that each of the four references relied on by the
Examiner “lacks at least one major insight required to produce the present
invention, and none [ ] suggests or discloses how its own deficiencies might
be cured so as to result in the presently claimed invention” (Appeal Br. 13).
In particular, Appellants argue that “Belov fails to teach density
spotting, the use of live cells, and hydrogel coating of a solid support” (id.).
Appellants argue that “the analysis of viable cells is not taught or suggested”
in Chang either, but acknowledge that Chang does teach “a high density of
spotting” (id. at 10).
Appellants also acknowledge that Wagner uses “various organic thin
films as coating for substrates[,]” but argue that Wagner’s microarrays are
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013