Appeal No. 1996-3409
Application No. 08/092,543
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known process of analysis for detecting
known constituents associated with a particular disease if one wanted to diagnose that
disease.” See the Examiner’s Answer, the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11.
We are not persuaded. Again, the specification teaches that
mathematical/statistical models are not interchangeable in the claimed method. The
examiner has not explained why frequency distribution probability analysis would have
been selected over other models, such as linear regression analysis, stepwise regression
analysis, or cluster analysis, which cannot successfully distinguish between disease and
non-disease populations.
Again, we find no reason stemming from the prior art which would have led a
person having ordinary skill to the claimed method. In our judgment, the only reason or
suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed comes from appellant’s
specification. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 through 20 as unpatentable over
Miyagi, Long, Seltzer and the admitted state of the prior art is reversed.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 through 20 have been provisionally rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 through 20 of copending application
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007