Appeal 2007-0725
Reexamination Control 90/006,785
Patent 5,073,484
working in the field.” Dr. Gordon states that he “conducted a search of U.S.
patents that include Weiss as a cited reference” and that “[n]one of these
patents make use of an adsorbed dye that in use can be disassociated from its
ligand or anti-ligand.” Dr. Gordon’s Testimony does not provide an
objective basis upon which to conclude that the Weiss patent lacks an
enabling disclosure. Dr. Gordon’s “serious doubt” is not an explanation of
why Weiss lacks an enabling disclosure. For example, Dr. Gordon did not
discuss the Weiss Specification or point out where he believes its
shortcoming lie. Dr. Gordon’s statements are merely conclusory on this
point and we accord them very little weight.
As to its third argument, Patentee argues that Weiss does not teach
labeling with a chemical moiety but instead uses an indicator that is merely
adsorbed onto the immobilized reactant. Patentee states that “the term
‘labeled’ must be interpreted as it would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date .…” In particular, Patentee
argues that a “label” must be “bound” to the reactant such that “as a whole
product”…the labeled antibody . . . ”may be displaced as a whole from the
immobilized analyte.” (Br. at 12). Patentee argues that the dye of Weiss is
“releasably attached” to the reactant and therefore is not a label. (Br. at 13).
We are not persuaded that the claims should be interpreted as
narrowly as Patentee suggests. The ‘484 Specification does not provide a
specific definition of the term “labeled”. As the Examiner notes, the ‘484
Specification does not exclude adsorption as a means of labeling “ ‘nor is
there any indication that the term ‘labeled’ has a meaning contrary to what is
accepted in the art which does not exclude ‘adsorption’.” (Answer at 10).
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013