Appeal No. 93-3369
Application 07/344,179
In addition, the claim limitations with respect to the
complex contained on the column support are neither exhibited nor
suggested by the cited references. Claim 70, and thus all of
the claims require as the third element:
a specific antibody binder covalently immobilized on
said first solid phase support to which an analyte
label is pre-reacted to saturate substantially all
binding sites on said binder to form a first solid
phase specific antibody binder-analyte label complex
....
Diamond is not drawn to antibody-analyte complexes. To the
extent that any analogy could be drawn, “substantially all of the
binding sites” of the target DNA of Diamond are not saturated.
Referring to Figures 1A and 1B of Diamond one can see this
aspect. The rejection suggests that the TBR (target binding
region) of the immobilized probe (P) of Diamond is analogous to
the antibody, and the labeled polynucleotide (L) is analogous to
the “analyte label.” However, saturation of all of the binding
sites of the TBR does not take place in Diamond. In fact
saturation of all of the “binding sites” of the probe would
disable the DNA hybridization required by Diamond. The IBR
(initial binding region) of the TBR is not bound to any DNA prior
to the addition of the sample of DNA, while the LBR (label
binding region) is bound to the labeled polynucleotide (L). See
Figure 1A of Diamond. The “binding sites” of the IBR must remain
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007