SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : AFFYMETRIX (AFFX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Haugland who wrote (741)6/30/1998 1:43:00 AM
From: jpbrody  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1728
 
Richard, thanks for posting that patent info. I wasn't aware of that one. Just one question for you, why do you interpret the "attached" to mean "covalently attached"? I'm not much of a chemist, but I thought that the Hyseq method is more of a non-specific adsorption to the surface, which I wouldn't call covalent, but I would call attached.

From the patents I've looked at in this field, mostly hyseq and nanogen, I don't see any problems for affymetrix. Hyseq has some patents on sequencing by hybridization, which was the big application for these chips five years ago, but is almost irrelevant these days. Nanogen is off in a parallel universe. They seem to be working more on low density arrays using their electric fields to provide rapid results when testing for specific infectious microbes. It's much more of a hospital lab test than a genomics platform.



To: Richard Haugland who wrote (741)6/30/1998 1:57:00 AM
From: Michael McVey Lusk  Respond to of 1728
 
Richard,

Thanks for an excellent explanation. But I don't see how AFFX or anyone else can patent a density or a range of densities. That would be like patenting any building that stands over 3 stories tall - patenting a goal, not a means.

I don't know much about the details of the suit, but Boyce Burge posted a good explanation of one of the patents in dispute a while ago on this board. As I recall, it had to do the sequencing method.

Regards, MML



To: Richard Haugland who wrote (741)6/30/1998 8:42:00 AM
From: jerryriti  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1728
 
Much thanks,and, yes, it clarifies quite a bit. Hope I was not the only soul needing the help, but in any case thanks again!



To: Richard Haugland who wrote (741)7/1/1998 8:30:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1728
 
>> and it will depend to some degree on the brightness of the dye used for
the detection step <<

Yeah, right! As if you're some sort of expert in this field!

:-)


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News