Appeal No. 95-0285
Application No. 07/648,586
contacting, under AST reacton [sic] conditions, a body fluid
sample from the mammal with cysteine sulfinic acid (CSA) in the
presence of a triarylmethine dye nonreactive with both AST and
CSA for a period of time sufficient for at least some of said CSA
to be converted to sulfite ions that react with said triaryl-
methine dye to form a signal species; and
determining the amount of signal species formed, and thereby
the amount of AST in said sample. [Emphasis added.]
19. A method for detecting an AST-related disease in a patient
comprising contacting a fluid sample from the patient with
cysteine sulfinic acid (CSA) in the presence of a triarylmethine
dye that is nonreactive with both CSA and the fluid sample, and
detecting reaction of said triarylmethine dye. [Emphasis added.]
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Babler et al. (Babler) 4,801,535 Jan. 31, 1989
Baram 4,981,787 Jan. 1, 1991
Staple et al. (Staple) 5,039,619 Aug. 13, 1991
(filed Sept. 20, 1989)
The issue presented for review is whether the examiner erred
in rejecting all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Baram, Staple and
Babler.
On consideration of the record, we reverse the examiner's
prior art rejection. The claimed assay kit requires, as an
essential component, cysteine sulfinic acid (CSA) and the claimed
method requires CSA as an essential reagent. Manifestly, the
prior art relied on by the examiner is insufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of claims reciting CSA. Neither Baram
nor Staple nor Babler discloses or suggests the use of CSA.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007