Appeal No. 2004-1934 Page 5
Application No. 09/819,317
We find no error in the examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1
as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based upon
the disclosures of Halverson and Kreisher. Appellants read Kreisher in too narrow a
manner as describing only porous materials are suitable as immobilizing materials.
Appeal Brief, page 6. This is incorrect. As recognized by appellants, Appeal Brief,
pages 5-6, Kreisher states:
The electrophoretically resolved material in the gelatin sheet is placed in
contacting relationship with an immobilizing material. Any suitable
immobilizing material can be used, such as membranes, papers, nylon,
nitrocellulose, diazobenzyloxymethyl (DBM) paper, diazophenylthioether
(DPT) paper, and the like.
Id. At best, this portion of Kreisher indicates that the use of a porous immobilizing
material is a preference, not a requirement. Clearly, Kreisher is not limited to the use
porous immobilizing materials. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading
Kreisher and Halverson together would have understood that the laminate described by
Halverson would be a suitable immobilizing material in an electroblot process such as
that described by Kreisher.
In this regard we note that appellants have not set forth any technical reason why
a laminate as described in Halverson would not be useful in an electroblot process as
described by Kreisher. The fact that the use of such a laminate may be considered a
non-preferred embodiment of Kreisher does not mean that the combination of
references as proposed by the examiner is improper.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007