Appeal No. 2001-1431
Application No. 07/968,553
b) analyzing each of samples of tagged cells by means of flow
cytometry and recording the median fluorescence channel for
each sample;
c) setting acceptance criteria for assay sensitivity and specificity;
d) determining the fluorescence channel number at which the
criteria are met; and
e) utilizing said fluorescence channel number as the decision point
such that samples having a median fluorescence channel that
exceeds the decision point are classed positive for the marker.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the marker of interest is HLA-B27.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Schwartz 5,073,497 Dec. 17, 1991
Ellis et al. (Ellis) 4,447,528 May 08, 1984
McKenzie et al. (McKenzie) 5,059,524 Oct. 22, 1991
DAKO Corp. (DAKO Bulletin), “The CD System, Classification of Human
Leucocyte Antigen,” DAKO Corporation, USA (1990)
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schwartz in view of Ellis.1
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schwartz, Ellis, and McKenzie.
Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Schwartz, Ellis, McKenzie, and the DAKO Bulletin.
1 The examiner’s statement of this rejection in the Examiner’s Answer (page 2) does not mention
Ellis. It is clear from the examiner’s explanation, however, that the rejection is based on the
combination of Schwartz and Ellis. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 4. This is also the basis on
which the claims were finally rejected (Paper No. 18, page 2) and the basis on which Appellants
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007