Appeal No. 1997-0838
Application 08/235,238
application provides ‘adequate support’ for the claim(s) at issue.” Id., 935 F.2d at 1560,
1111 USPQ at 1114.
As the result of amendment, claims 10 and 11 require “preserving more than 50%
of LDH activity” during the process of the invention. Appellants argue that this limitation is
1
adequately supported inasmuch as the invention “provid[es] an LDH assay which is useful
1
for clinical examinations,” while prior art methods are described in the specification as
“unsatisfactory for clinical examinations because more than 50 percent LDH may be
1
inactivated during the inhibition of the other enzymes.” Brief, page 24.
In context, and under the heading “Description of the Related Art,” the portion of the
specification cited by appellants reads as follows:
In a most common LDH isozyme assay, LDH , LDH , LDH , LDH and then1 2 3 4
LDH are fractionated in the order of electrophoretic mobility. An
5
immunological LDH assay is also known. In other LDH assay . . . a
coenzyme derivative . . . is used. In addition, LDH assays wherein a sample
is treated under an alkaline condition are described . . .
The above-mentioned electrophoretic or immunological assay is unsuitable
for clinical autoanalysis because of complicated process and long operation
time. In addition, the LDH isozymes may be insufficiently fractionated by the
electrophoretic method.
[I]t is impossible to assay the LDH isozyme fractions by the method wherein
the coenzyme derivative is used . . .
In the method comprising the alkaline treatment of the sample, more than 50
% of LDH may be inactivated during the inhibition of the other isozymes. In
1
addition, the process is complicated and takes a long time.
Thus, the above-mentioned conventional LDH assays are unsatisfactory for
a clinical examination. (pages 1 and 2, emphasis added).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007