Ex Parte Mariella

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2009

10393637 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RAYMOND P. MARIELLA JR.
__________

Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637
Technology Center 1600
__________

Decided:1July 16, 2009
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and STEPHEN WALSH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WALSH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of writing information in DNA. The Patent Examiner rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to writing information into, and reading
information from, a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule. (Spec.
3:[0009].) An example is using “DNA to transmit encoded messages.” (Id.
at 5:[0013].) Claims 1, 4, 9 and 12, which are all the pending claims, are on
appeal. The claims read:
1. A method of writing information in the medium of DNA, comprising
the steps of:

[a]2 translating the information into an information containing form using
the four letters A, G, T, and C, said step of translating said
information into at least one information containing DNA sequence
comprises using a computer program to translate said information into
at least one information containing DNA sequence,

[b] writing the information in at least one information containing DNA
sequence by converting said information containing form into said
information containing DNA sequence,

[c] preselecting at least one other DNA sequence, said step of
preselecting at least one other DNA sequence comprises using a
computer program to preselect at least one other DNA sequence,

[d] synthesizing a DNA molecule of user-defined sequence that contains
said at least one information containing DNA sequence and said at
least one other DNA sequence, wherein said step of synthesizing a
DNA molecule of user-defined sequence comprises
providing a pre-defined, double-stranded, sequence of DNA
with a single-stranded overhang,
tethering said pre-defined, doublestranded, sequence of DNA
with a single-stranded overhang to a bead,

2 The bracketed letter annotations are not part of the claims; we add them
simply for reference.
2
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

lengthening said pre-defined, double-stranded, sequence of
DNA by the addition of said at least one information containing
DNA sequence and said at least one other DNA sequence, and

[e] decoding said information from said at least one information
containing DNA sequence.

4. The method of writing information in the medium of DNA of claim 1
wherein said steps of [a] translating the information into an
information containing form using the four letters A, G, T, and C and
[c] preselecting at least one other DNA sequence comprise
using computational techniques for translating said information
containing form using the four letters A, G, T, and C and for
preselecting said at least one other DNA sequence into
fragments of defined size.

9. A method of writing information in the medium of DNA, consisting
of the steps of:

[a] translating the information into an information containing form using
the four letters A, G, T, and C, said step of translating said
information into at least one information containing DNA sequence
comprises using a computer program to translate said information into
at least one information containing DNA sequence,

[b] writing the information in an information containing DNA sequence
wherein said information containing form is converted into said
information containing DNA sequence,

[c] preselecting another DNA sequence, said step of preselecting at least
one other DNA sequence comprises using a computer program to
preselect at least one other DNA sequence,

[d] synthesizing a DNA molecule of user-defined sequence that contains
said information containing DNA sequence and said another DNA
sequence, wherein said synthesizing a DNA molecule of user-defined
sequence comprises
3
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

providing a pre-defined, double-stranded, sequence of DNA
with a single-stranded overhang,
tethering said pre-defined, double-stranded, sequence of DNA
with a single-stranded overhang to a bead support,
lengthening said pre-defined, double-stranded, sequence of
DNA by the addition of at least one DNA sequence, and

[e] decoding said information from said at least one information
containing DNA sequence.

12. The method of writing information in the medium of DNA of claim 9
wherein said steps of [a] translating information into an information
containing form using the four letters A, G, T, and C and
[c] preselecting another DNA sequence comprise
using computational techniques for translating said information
containing form using the four letters A, G, T, and C and for
preselecting said at least one other DNA sequence into
fragments of defined size.

The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Bancroft,3 Sgaramella4 and
Walt.5

OBVIOUSNESS
The Issue
The Examiner’s position is that Bancroft taught a method whereby
coded messages are concealed in DNA, and decoded, in five steps. (Ans. 4-

3 U.S. Patent No. 6,312,911 B1, issued to Bancroft et al., Nov. 6, 2001.
4 V. Sgaramella et al., Studies on Polynucleotides, C. A Novel Joining
Reaction Catalyzed by the T4-Polynucleotide Ligase, 67 PROC. NAT’L ACAD.
SCIENCES 1468-75 (Nov. 1970).
5 David R. Walt, Bead-based Fiber-Optic Arrays, 287 SCIENCE 451-52 (Jan.
21, 2000).
4
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

5.) The Examiner found that Bancroft did not teach the specifics of
synthesizing the double stranded DNA molecule with overhangs as claimed,
and tethering the molecule with a single-stranded overhang, but that
Sgaramella taught such steps for synthesizing a double stranded DNA. (Id.
at 5.) The Examiner found that Bancroft taught using DNA chip arrays but
did not teach tethering the DNA molecule to a bead, and that Walt taught
that bead arrays provided a new platform for analysis. (Id. at 6.)
The Examiner found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to use Sgaramella’s synthesis method because Bancroft
taught there was a greater advantage to extending the molecule. (Id.)
Because Walt taught that the advantages of bead technology were more
efficient arrays, small size and flexibility, the Examiner found one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use bead arrays over
the chip arrays Bancroft taught. (Id.)
Appellant contends that the Final Rejection contains inaccurate fact
finding and that it “fails to give weight to the ‘consisting of’ preamble of
claims 1 and 9.” (App. Br. 8.) According to Appellant, the Sgaramella and
Walt references have “nothing to do with the Bancroft reference
stenographic [sic, steganographic] method for concealing coded messages in
DNA,” and there was no reason for combining the three references. (Id. at
9-10 and 16-17.) Appellant disputes that Bancroft and Sgaramella made the
disclosures the Examiner found in them, and disputes whether there was a
reasonable expectation of success for the Examiner’s proposed combination
of their teachings. (Id. at 11-18.)
The issues are:
5
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

does the evidence support the Examiner’s findings of facts concerning
the scope and content of the prior art;
were Bancroft, Sgaramella and Walt sufficiently pertinent to each
other that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined their
teachings; and
was there a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of
prior art teachings that the Examiner proposed?

Findings of Fact
Bancroft
1. Bancroft described “a steganography method for concealing coded
messages in DNA.” (Col. 1, ll. 8-9.)
2. Bancroft explained that when steganography is used,
[t]he secret message is hidden in such a way that
someone who is not supposed to read the message does
not know how to read it, and in fact does not even know
it is present; but someone who is supposed to read the
message possesses a key that permits him/her to detect
and read the message.

(Col. 1, ll. 18-24.)
3. Bancroft taught that “[s]ince the human genome contains c. 3 x 109
nucleotide pairs per haploid genome, human DNA fragmented and
denatured to physically resemble secret message DNA would provide
a very complex background for concealment of secret message DNA.”
(Col. 2, ll. 38-42.)
6
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

4. Bancroft’s method converted information to a form using A, G, T, and
C, 6 such that a message was created within a DNA sequence. (Col. 3,
ll. 42-52.)
5. According to Bancroft, “any convenient method for encoding a secret
message may be employed to encode a secret message into DNA.”
(Col. 3, ll. 41-43.)
6. As an example encryption code, Bancroft used a three base code
generated by computer to represent each letter of the alphabet, some
punctuation symbols, and the digits 0 - 9. (Col. 3, ll. 43-47; see Fig.
1.)
7. After encoding a message into a DNA sequence, the message would
be “flanked on either end by primer sequences known only to the
sender and the intended recipient of the message.” (Col. 3, ll. 48-50.)
8. “The secret DNA molecule can be synthesized by conventional
techniques . . . preferably in double stranded form . . . .” (Col. 3, ll.
53-55.)
9. Bancroft taught using a ligase to attach DNA molecules to each other.
(Col. 2, ll. 18-24.)
10. In a preferred embodiment, Bancroft taught combining the concealed
coded message DNA with chip technology to provide an
authentication technique. (Col. 7, ll. 56-60.)

6 We take notice that A, G, T, and C are the one letter abbreviations for the
four bases adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine that identify the
nucleotide subunits of the DNA chain. See the discussion of DNA
terminology in In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 895-898 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
7
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

11. According to Bancroft, the micro array fabrication techniques of
Affymetrix or Incyte could be used for carrying hundreds of
thousands of different DNA molecules. (Col. 7, l. 61 - col. 8, l. 6.)
12. In a working example, Bancroft used a computer random number
generator to produce the encryption key, using a number between 1
and 4 to represent each base. (Col. 11, ll. 24-46.)
13. In the working example, Bancroft selected the sequences of the
flanking primers by generating random sequences and comparing
them to the human genome to avoid priming on human sequences.
(Col. 11, ll. 30-39.)
14. In the working example, the “secret message (SM) DNA
oligodeoxynucleotide was synthesized containing, from the 5-
terminus, the forward primer sequence, an encoded message, and the
complement of the reverse primer sequence.” (Col. 11, ll. 42-46.)
15. Bancroft used the encryption key to decode the example secret
message DNA “June6 Invasion:Normandy.” (Col. 12, ll. 54-57.)
16. DNA was known as an information storage molecule before the time
of Bancroft’s or Appellant’s invention.7

7 We take notice of this fact. See O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 895-898 (“To make
a protein molecule, a cell needs information about the sequence in which the
amino acids must be assembled. The cell uses a long polymeric molecule,
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), to store this information.”)

8
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

Sgaramella
17. Sgaramella described an enzyme called polynucleotide ligase, which
catalyzes the joining of double stranded DNA molecules at their ends.
(Abstract.)
18. Sgaramella taught synthesizing any long DNA molecule of a
predetermined sequence by providing a pre-defined, double stranded
(ds) DNA molecule with a single-stranded (ss) overhang (p. 1468,
Fig. 1, and para. 1 to p. 1469).
19. Sgaramella taught ligating DNA to lengthen the double stranded (ds)
DNA (p. 1469, l. 14 – p. 1470, l. 3).
20. Sgaramella taught adding a final user-selected, single stranded (ss)
DNA creating a final overhang and ligating a pre-defined double
stranded (ds) sequence which has a single stranded (ss) overhang
complementary to the final overhang. (p. 1468, Fig. 1; explained in
the paragraph from pp. 1468-69.)

Walt
21. According to Walt, DNA microarrays “revolutionized” the analysis of
genetic information. (p. 1, ll. 1-2.)
22. According to Walt, “[m]ost DNA microarrays are prepared with one
of three now standard approaches:”
(i) the Affymetrix GeneChip probe arrays with hundreds to
thousands of DNA sequences on a glass surface;
(ii) ink-jet techniques; and
(iii) bead arrays. (p. 1, 1st para.)
9
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

23. Walt disclosed that optical bead arrays were a “new platform” for
analysis of DNA (p. 1, 1st para.)
24. According to Walt, bead arrays are assembled on an optical fiber
substrate, and the “[a]dvantages of optical fiber sensors are their small
size and flexibility.” (p. 1, 2nd and 3rd para.)
25. Walt described oligonucleotide bead arrays in wells “prepared by
attaching DNA probes to microspheres and then filling each well with
a microsphere carrying a different DNA.” (p. 2, 3rd full para.)
26. According to Walt, bead assays were becoming increasingly popular,
and were advantageous because of “the sheer scale of bead
preparation.” (p. 3, 1st full para.)

Principles of Law
A rejection for obviousness must include “articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When obviousness is based on a combination of
teachings from prior art, the proper question to ask is whether a person of
ordinary skill in the art, facing the wide range of needs created by
developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to
combining the prior art teachings. KSR, 550 U.S. at 424; see also In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the desirability of the
combination may arise from nature of the problem, teachings of references,
or the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art). “Obviousness does
not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a
10
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

reasonable expectation of success.” In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04
(Fed. Cir. 1988). When teachings of references are combined, each “must
be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with
the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may
be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the
claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.” Invitrogen Corp. v.
Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Analysis
The Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness was based on a
finding that Bancroft taught a method of writing information in DNA in five
steps, including translating, writing, preselecting, synthesizing, and
decoding. We agree with the Examiner that Bancroft’s method included the
steps recited by Appellant’s steps [a], [b] and [e].
Bancroft preselected “at least one other DNA sequence,” which
Bancroft used for flanking sequences, as recited in Appellant’s step [c].
However, Bancroft did not state that preselecting the flanking sequences
comprised using a computer program. For the reasons explained below, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to use a computer
11
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

program to perform Bancroft’s preselecting step, and that Appellant’s step
[c] was suggested by Bancroft.
After steps of [a] translating, [b] writing, and [c] preselecting flanking
sequences, Bancroft’s method included a step of [d] “synthesizing a DNA
molecule of user defined sequence that contains said at least one information
containing DNA sequence [i.e., the secret message] and said at least one
other DNA sequence [the flanking sequences]” as recited in Appellant’s step
[d]. Bancroft taught tethering the DNA molecule to a chip, but did not teach
tethering the molecule to a bead. For the reasons explained below, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to improve on Bancroft’s
use of a chip microarray by using Walt’s bead array. Bancroft taught that
the DNA could be synthesized by any conventional method. For the reasons
explained below, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to use Sgaramella’s ligase as the synthetic catalyst. Sgaramella’s
ligase worked by ligating overhangs, and the overhang structure recited in
step [d] would have been obvious once Sgaramella’s ligase was chosen.
Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred.

A. Does the evidence support the Examiner’s findings on the scope and
content of the prior art?
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding that Bancroft taught
computer translation of information is “inaccurate and in error.” (App. Br.
11.) According to Appellant, Bancroft did not disclose Appellant’s steps of
using a computer program to translate, using a computer program to
preselect, or using computational techniques for translating. (Id. at 11.)
12
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

Bancroft described using a random number generator in the Borland
C++ compiler to generate the encryption key shown in Fig. 1B. (FF12.) As
shown, Bancroft’s computer generated an encryption key that translated
letters, numbers and punctuation into three letter equivalents. We agree with
the Examiner that that step is “computer translation of information.” (Ans.
9.) Bancroft’s translating step thus necessarily comprised using a computer
program because the code used was generated by computer. Claims 1 and 9
use the open term “comprises,” which minimally requires using a computer
program for any one part of translating step [a]. Bancroft therefore taught
Appellant’s step [a].
The Examiner went on to explain that Bancroft taught flanking
primers, each with a random sequence but for a central six nucleotide
restriction enzyme site. (Id.) The Examiner concluded that because
Bancroft taught using the computer for the encryption key, and taught
selecting primer sequences by comparison to the human gene sequence, it
would have been obvious to use a computer for preselecting the flanker
sequences. (Ans. 9.)
Bancroft explained that the primers were selected on the basis of
comparison with known human gene sequences for the purpose of avoiding
priming human genomic DNA, but Bancroft did not say how the comparison
was accomplished. (FF13.) Bancroft’s purpose was to select primer
sequences with the lowest probability of priming human DNA. (FF13.)
Bancroft disclosed that the human genome was about 3 billion nucleotide
base pairs in length. (FF3.) It would hardly have been possible to check the
primers against 3 billion base pairs in the human genome without a
13
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

computer. We agree with the Examiner that using a computer to screen the
primer sequences against the genome would have been obvious especially in
view of Bancroft’s description of the size of the task. The nature of the
problem itself was enough to suggest using a computer. We conclude that a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would
have found it obvious to use a computer in Bancroft’s primer screening step.
Bancroft’s primer selection step, with the screening done as suggested using
a computer, corresponds to claim 1 and 9’s “preselecting” step [c], which
“comprises using a computer program to preselect at least one other DNA
sequence.”
Appellant argues that the Examiner cited a portion of Bancroft that
relates to use of the encryption key for “decoding,” but not to the steps of
using a computer program to translate, preselect, or to “using computational
techniques for translating.” (App. Br. at 12.) Bancroft decoded the secret
DNA sequence, shown in Fig. 1D, by using the encryption key to reveal the
message “June 6 Invasion:Normandy.” (FF15.) Appellant’s step [e] does
not recite that a computer is used. Thus, Bancroft taught decoding
corresponding to claim 9’s step [e].
Appellant argues that the Final Rejection failed to give weight to the
“consisting of” preamble of claims 9 and 12. (App. Br. 18.) Appellant has
not explained how the preamble’s “consisting of” distinguishes the claimed
method over the method suggested by Bancroft, Sgaramella and Walt.
We agree that claim 9 recites “consisting of” at the end of the
preamble to introduce steps [a] through [e], so that the method is closed to
steps other than the five recited. However, steps [a], [c] and [d] use the open
14
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

transitional term “comprises” to transition between “translating,”
“preselecting,” and “synthesizing,” respectively, and recited sub-steps. That
is, each of steps [a], [c] and [d] is open to additional unrecited sub-steps as
part of the “translating,” “preselecting,” and “synthesizing” steps. We
interpret claim 9 as consisting of five steps, but the “translating,”
“preselecting,” and “synthesizing” steps are open to including additional
sub-steps beyond the one(s) they recite. See Invitrogen, 327 F.3d at 1368.
Similarly, claim 12 recites that the steps of translating and
preselecting “comprise using computational techniques.” Bancroft’s
translating step comprised a computational technique that created the
encoding key. (FF6.) And we have concluded that using a computational
technique in Bancroft’s preselecting step of choosing primer sequences
would have been obvious, given the task of screening the primer sequences
against the 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. Appellant’s use of
“comprise” does not distinguish Bancroft’s step modified to include a
computational technique.
Appellant generally objects that each of the references, taken in turn,
fails to include claimed elements, or includes many elements in addition to
the combination Appellant claims. (App. Br. 19.) It is not surprising that
Bancroft taught a variety of embodiments that Appellant does not recite in
the claims, or that Sgaramella and Walt taught things not recited in
Appellant’s claims. That there are differences between what each isolated
reference disclosed and what the claims recite does not mean the claimed
invention was nonobvious. The proper question is what each reference
“fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” Merck,
15
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

800 F.2d at 1097. We are not persuaded of error on this point. The claimed
methods “comprising” and “consisting of” the listed five steps would have
been obvious.

B. Were the Sgaramella and Walt disclosures sufficiently pertinent to
Bancroft that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of the three references?
According to Appellant, “[t]he Sgaramella reference has nothing to do
with Appellant’s claimed method of writing information in the medium of
DNA.” (App. Br. 9.) The more pertinent question is whether a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would
have thought Sgaramella’s method of ligating DNA molecules had anything
to do with Bancroft’s step of ligating DNA molecules. Bancroft taught that
the DNA molecule could be synthesized by any conventional means. (FF8.)
Bancroft taught ligating double stranded DNA molecules to each other with
a ligase. (FF9.) Bancroft did not name a specific ligase to use, and a person
wishing to practice Bancroft’s method would have had to choose a ligase
from those available in the art. It is undisputed that Sgaramella described an
available ligase, suitable for conventional DNA synthesis. Sgaramella’s
disclosure supplemented Bancroft’s call for any conventional ligase with a
specific conventional ligase. We find that Sgaramella’s DNA synthetic
method was in the same field as Bancroft’s synthetic step. Sgaramella was
pertinent to both Bancroft’s method and Appellant’s invention. See Clay,
966 F.2d at 658-59. It would have been obvious for the person choosing to
16
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

use Sgaramella’s ligase to follow the steps Sgaramella taught, and adapt
Bancroft’s method accordingly.
Appellant similarly argues that “[t]he Walt reference has nothing to do
with the Bancroft reference stenographic [sic, steganographic] method” or
with the Sgaramella reference. (App. Br. 10.) Bancroft expressly taught
attaching secret DNA molecules to microarray substrates, like the
Affymetrix chip, or other substrates. (FF11.) Walt taught there were at least
three conventional microarray technologies, including the Affymetrix chip
(FF22). We find that Walt was in the same field as that part of Bancroft that
called for microarray technologies, and pertinent to both Bancroft’s method
and Appellant’s invention. See Clay, 966 F.2d at 658-59.

C. Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding a reasonable
expectation of success for the Examiner’s proposed modifications to
Bancroft’s method?
Appellant relies on reference dissimilarity to argue there would not
have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining their teachings.
(App. Br. 17-18.) We have already found that the references were
reasonably pertinent to each other. We agree with the Examiner that the
references would have informed a person of ordinary skill in the art wanting
to use Bancroft’s DNA steganography method. The dissimilarities show that
Sgaramella and Walt complemented Bancroft and provided guidance for
either practicing Bancroft’s ligase method or for improving Bancroft’s
microarray embodiments. Mere dissimilarity is not an adequate test for
whether references are pertinent to each other because references may be
17
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

pertinent even when they are not in the same field of endeavor. See Clay,
966 F.2d at 659.
Sgaramella reported successful work with the T4 ligase. Walt
reported the success of others using DNA-tethered beads. Those successes
suggest that others applying those teachings at the time of Appellant’s
invention would have been successful. Appellant provides no objective
evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have
thought that (1) Sgaramella’s ligase was unlikely to be usable for Bancroft’s
“conventional” DNA synthesis, or (2) the bead systems described by Walt as
alternatives to DNA chips, e.g., the Affymetrix chips, were unlikely to be
substitutes for the same Affymetrix chip system Bancroft taught using. “[I]f
a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.
We find that the concrete, specific teachings of Sgaramella and Walt
were detailed and enabling, and that artisans in this field had motivation to
apply their teachings to Bancroft’s method and a reasonable expectation of
success in doing so. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(a conclusion of obviousness is “appropriate where the prior art ‘contained
detailed enabling methodology for practicing the claimed invention, a
suggestion to modify the prior art to practice the claimed invention, and
evidence suggesting that it would be successful’”) (emphasis deleted),
quoting O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 902.

18
Appeal 2009-004291
Application 10/393,637

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The evidence supports the Examiner’s findings of the scope and
content of the prior art;
Bancroft, Sgaramella and Walt were sufficiently pertinent to each
other that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined their
teachings; and
there was a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of
prior art teachings that the Examiner described.

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Bancroft,
Sgaramella and Walt.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Ssc:
EDDIE E. SCOTT
ASSISTANT LABORATORY COUNSEL
LAWRENCE LIVERMOE NATIONAL LABORATORY
P.O. BOX 808, L-703
LIVERMORE, CA 94551
19