Appeal No. 2006-3006 Page 3
Application No. 10/123,713
5. An analytical system as in claim 1, wherein said labeling agent
comprises a fluorescent cyanine dye.
Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bobrow1 in view of Lizardi.2
Claims 1-4 and 6-13
Claim 1 is drawn to an analytical system having six key limitations: 1) a
“support member”; 2) an array of different first members of specific binding pairs
which are 3) immobilized “on an uppermost surface” of the support member and
separated spatially; 4) a peroxidase enzyme; 5) a “coupling agent”; and 6) a
conjugate of a labeling agent and a substituted phenol substrate.
The Examiner asserts that Bobrow describes all elements of the claimed
analytical system, but does not “specifically teach [that] the different binding pairs
are immobilized on the same support.” Answer 3: 15-16.
However, arrays of different first binding members were well known
in the art at the time the claimed invention was made as taught by
Lizardi et al. Lizardi et al[.] teach an analysis system similar to that of
Bobrow wherein nitrocellulose is a preferred support for
immobilization (Column 24, line 9) and wherein the analytical system
comprises multiple and different binding members on the support
(Column 50, lines 22-56; Example 5, Column 65, line 1-Column 66,
line 31; and Fig. 9 and 29).”
Answer 3: 17-22.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Bobrow describes
limitations 1) and 4)-6) of the claimed subject matter, and we find no error in it.
However, Appellants assert that the combination of Bobrow in view of Lizardi
does not suggest “an array of different first members of a specific binding pair
1 Bobrow et al. (Bobrow), J. Immunol. Methods, 137: 103-112 (1991).
2 Lizardi, U.S. Pat. 6,143,495, Nov. 7, 2000.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013