determination of the claims cannot be accepted. Although the claims delimit the scope and ambit of the monopoly claim, the embodiments set out in the complete specification can and should be examined to assess whether the process is per se diagnostic. In my view, if the amended claim 1 or current claim 1 is examined in the context of the above and other paragraphs of the complete specification, it follows that person(s) skilled in the art would be able to arrive at a diagnosis as to whether a specific chromosomal aberration, such as an aneuploidy, exists by adopting this process. For some understanding of size distribution analysis, reference may be made to the article “Size based molecular diagnostics using plasma DNA for noninvasive prenatal testing” by Stephanie C.Y. Yu et al, dated June 10, 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 111, No. 23, pages 8583-8588. If a positive result for a chromosomal aneuploidy is returned, medical literature indicates that a medical doctor is likely to opt for definitive diagnosis by undertaking chorionic villi sampling or amniocentesis. It is also possible that the claimed invention may be more effective in identifying certain autosomal aneuploidies and less effective with chromosomal mutations or sex chromosomal monosomies and trisomies. On those counts, however, it cannot be concluded that the process described by the claimed invention is not diagnostic because neither definitive nor comprehensive diagnosis is a prerequisite to qualify as diagnostic. Once it is concluded that the claims are patent ineligible, it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds of decision, such as lack of inventive step, and sufficient to record that the impugned order does not warrant interference.”
