Appeal No. 96-1355
Application 07/896,209
The examiner believes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to determine granulocytes in an assay process
taught by Free and Meiattini with the colorless fraction obtained by the Fetters process.”
2
The reason, suggestion or motivation to combine the references in this manner according
to the examiner is “to get more accurate results for leukocytes free from the interferences
of heme.” See the Answer, page 6.
Appellants argue that, unlike any of the prior art methods, “[t]he claimed method
features a step for removing interfering blood cell components from the sample before
the myeloperoxidase is released from the granulocytes in that sample and contacted with
the oxygen-sensitive indicator . . . [a]nother important -- and patentable -- feature of the
claimed method . . . is that of trapping the granulocytes on a membrane in order to isolate
those cells from other, potentially interfering constituents of the blood sample” and “[a]
related, and also patentably distinguishing, limitation of the claims on appeal requires that
the assay medium be contacted with the intracellular myeloperoxidase on the membrane
in that location where the granulocytes are trapped.” See the Brief, pages 3 and 4.
2 As stated in Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,
1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted), “It is well-established
that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination of
references, there must have been a reason, suggestion or motivation to lead an inventor to
combine those references.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007