Ex Parte Ridgway - Page 8

                Appeal  2006-2372                                                                                  
                Application 10/854,708                                                                             
                can be in solid form . . .” (id.).  The Examiner relies on Brady to make up for                    
                this deficiency in Jennings.                                                                       
                       According to the Examiner Brady teaches “a method and kit for                               
                measuring platelet function” (id.).  In this regard, the Examiner finds that                       
                Brady teaches “that the components in the kit, including the platelet agonist,                     
                can be present in a solid, lyophilized form” (id.).                                                
                       Based on this evidence the Examiner concludes that                                          
                       it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at                           
                       the time of the instant invention to provide the platelet                                   
                       activation agonist in the platelet aggregation assay taught by                              
                       Jennings . . . in a solid form since Brady . . . teach that it is                           
                       advantageous to provide the reagents used in a platelet assay in                            
                       a solid, lyophilized form so as to preserve the reagents for a                              
                       long period of time until use, and thus extend the shelf life of                            
                       the reagents.                                                                               
                (Answer 6.)                                                                                        
                       We find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.                         
                       In response, Appellant’s only argument is that like Jennings, Brady                         
                also teaches a two tube method and therefore does not make up for                                  
                Appellant’s perceived deficiency in Jennings (Br. 7).  However, for the                            
                reason discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and                          
                instead find that Jennings would have suggested a “single tube” method to a                        
                person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.                            
                       Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 35                        
                U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jennings and                               
                Brady.  Since they are not separately argued, claims 7, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19                      
                fall together with claim 6.                                                                        



                                                        8                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013