Appeal No. 95-1293
Application 07/727,387
According to appellants, even if the references were combined
in the manner proposed by the examiner,
there is no disclosure in the prior art of the
nature of the fibrin/fibrinogen binding. Thus,
there is nothing in the references to suggest that
the specific binding between fibrin and fibrinogen
in Stemberger is the same as the type of binding
between antibodies and antigens described in
Scheefers-Borchel. The latter binding
(antibody/fibrin) is an immunological reaction
whereas the former binding (fibrin/fibrinogen) may
be, e.g., intramolecular hydrogen binding.
Fibrinogen simply cannot be equated to an antibody
directed against fibrin. [appeal brief, Paper No.
19, page 10]
We generally agree with this line of reasoning.
On this record, the examiner has not established that
Stemberger's adsorption of plasma fibrin on fibrinogen-
Sepharose has the same strength and selectivity compared with
the antigen/antibody binding described by Scheefers-Borchel.
Therefore, even if the prior art references were combined in
the manner proposed, a person having ordinary skill would not
have arrived at the claimed method with a reasonable
expectation of success. Note that independent claims 15 and
16 define a quantitative method for determining soluble fibrin
in a body fluid. Step(g) in each claim requires "determining
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007