Appeal 2007-2955
Application 10/190,425
irrelevant. Wagner and Taylor use the same kinds of capture probes, e.g.,
antibodies, to form their microarrays (FF 17 and 22). They may differ in the
manner in which the capture probes are attached to their respective
substrates, but we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized these different types of attachment as conventional, alternative
ways of immobilizing capture probes in a patterned microarray.
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391.
We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case that the
invention of claim 1 would have been obvious over the prior art, which
Appellants have not overcome by argument or evidence. As discussed
above, claims 2-4, 6, 10, 31, and 33 fall with claim 1. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 10, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Belov, Chang, Taylor, and Wagner is
affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013