Appeal No. 95-2371
Application 07/771,097
Claims 1 through 16 and 18 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Chichibu, Hellsing and Cole. We
reverse.3
Discussion
The claims on appeal all require the presence or use of a polyvinyl pyrrolidine
polymer having a molecular weight of at least 360,000 or a polyethylene glycol polymer
having a molecular weight of at least 40,000. We agree with appellants’ arguments in the
Appeal Brief that the three references relied upon by the examiner do not teach or suggest
the use of these polymers and, in fact, teach away from using such polymers. See, e.g.,
Appeal Brief, page 5, last full paragraph.
Chichibu does teach the use of a high molecular weight saccharide polymer in an
assay system similar to that required by the claims on appeal. However, the only high
molecular polymers described in the reference are saccharide polymers. Chichibu does
teach that a polyethylene glycol polymer may be used in that assay. However, the
molecular weight of the polyethylene glycol polymer is 6,000. See page 7 of the
translation. Thus, we agree with appellants’ position that the prior art tends to teach away
from, not towards, the claimed subject matter. The examiner relies upon the paragraph
3Our reversal of the examiner’s rejection renders moot appellants’ "REQUEST
FOR RESCHEDULING OF ORAL HEARING." A request was re-filed by facsimile on May
18, 1999 and is designated as Paper No. 27 in the administrative file.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007