Appeal 2007-3395
Application 10/260,733
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 18-25, 28-31, 34-
41, 46-49, 54-58, 61-62 and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Answer3 at 3 and
7). The Examiner relies upon the following prior art4 of record:
Bradley US 6,048,695 Apr. 11, 2000
Boa US 6,251,601 B1 Jun. 26, 2001
Kuukasjärvi, "Optimizing DOP-PCR for Universal Amplification of
Small DNA Samples in Comparative Genomic Hybridization," Genes,
Chromosomes & Cancer, Vol. 18, pp. 94-101 (1997).
Bradley, Bao and Kuukasjärvi qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
According to the Examiner, claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 18-25, 28-31, 34-41, 46,
54-58, 61-62 and 86 would have been obvious over the combined teachings
of Bao and Kuukasjärvi; and, claims 47-49 would have been obvious over
the combined teaches of Bao, Kuukasjärvi, and Bradley.
According to Appellant, the patentability of all the claims on appeal
stand or fall with claim 1 (Br. at 5 and 8). Therefore, we decide this appeal
on the basis of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v).
II. Findings of Fact ("FF")
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
A. Appellant's specification
[1] CGH is said to be a molecular cytogenetics approach that can be used
to detect regions in a genome undergoing quantitative changes, e.g.,
gains or losses of sequence or copy numbers (Specification at 28, ¶
85).
[2] According to the specification, the
3 Examiner's Answer mailed 12 March 2007 ("Answer").
4 No references to et al. are made in this opinion.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013