Appeal 2007-3395
Application 10/260,733
[39] The Examiner finds that Kuukasjärvi teaches "the use of serial
dilutions of DNA in CGH analysis to increase the sensitivity of the
assay to detect the genetic variation in a dilution factor comprising a
single cell that aid in efficient detection of genetic variation in small
sub populations of cells . . ." (Answer at 6, citations to Kuukasjärvi
omitted).
[40] The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the method of Bao with a step of including dilution fractions of the
DNA sample as taught by Kuukasjärvi for the purpose of increasing
the sensitivity of the method down to a single cell fraction as taught
by Kuukasjärvi (Answer at 6).
[41] Appellant contends that the cDNA population disclosed by Bao does
not constitute a substantially complete genome because cDNAs do not
include introns and, therefore, Bao does not teach or suggest a method
using three populations of labeled probes comprising substantially
complete complements of genomes as defined by claim 1 (Br. at 6-7;
Reply Br.8 at 8-10).
[42] Appellant further contends that Bao only discloses (1) a mixture of
mRNA or its complementary cDNA and (2) a mixture of genomic
DNA, both of which are merely representative of (1) gene expression
in the tissue sample and (2) genomic status of the tissue sample,
respectively; and, neither is a substantially complete complement of
genomic nucleic acid (Reply Br. at 9).
[43] The Examiner responds that the scope of a “substantially” complete
genome or its complement was not defined in Appellant’s
8 Reply Brief filed 11 May 2007 (“Reply Br.”).
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013