Appeal No. 1996-0783 Page 4
Application No. 08/102,297
detection means and interact with said means to generate a
detectable signal indicative of the presence or amount of
said analyte; and
d) detecting said signal.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Charlton et al. (Charlton) 4,776,904 Oct. 11,
1988
Lamos et al. (Lamos) 5,037,738 Aug. 06,
1991
Ertinghausen 5,087,556 Feb. 11,
1992
Vuorinen et al. (Vuorinen) 5,213,966 May 25,
1993
Claims 1-13, 16 and 19-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ertinghausen. Claims 14, 15,
17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ertinghausen in view of Vuorinen. Claims 1-
32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Charlton alone or Charlton in view of Vuorinen or Lamos.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the respective positions
advanced by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
set forth below, we will not sustain the stated rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007