Appeal 2006-2897
Application 10/074,715
capable of preserving thyroid stimulating hormone, as required by claim 12.
Appellants have not adequately rebutted this conclusion.
Appellants also contend lack of motivation to combine the two
references. The Examiner relies upon Figard primarily to address the
limitations of the dependent claims. Thus, we conclude motivation to
combine the two references need not be addressed, as the combination of
Steaffens and Figard is not needed to address the limitations of claim 12.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has made a prima facie case that Appellants’ preserving
composition of claim 12, “consisting essentially of” a chelating agent and a
cell lysing agent, “capable of preserving thyroid stimulating hormone,”
would have been obvious in view of Steaffens’ stabilizing composition
comprising a chelating agent and a cell lysing agent. Appellants have not
successfully rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Lacking any argument regarding their separate patentability, we also
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining pending claims 13-18, 20-
22, and 32 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013