Appeal No. 98-2792
Application 08/516,257
In rejecting dependent claims 10, 17 and 36 through
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Komives in
view of Schultz, the examiner has relied upon the teachings in
Schultz
regarding receptor material immobilized in a gel (Fig. 6) and
several binding agents or receptors being incorporated into
one sensor capsule (col. 7, lines 23-30) to modify Komives.
However, even if such teachings would have made it obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Komives in the
manner urged by the examiner, we note that Komives (as
modified) would still not have a sensor capsule having or
defining only one (a single) undivided processing chamber.
Thus, the examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 17 and 36 through
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will likewise not be sustained.
In addition to the foregoing, we find it necessary
to REMAND this case to the examiner for a decision on the
record as to whether or not a rejection of one or more of the
claims on appeal in this case would be appropriate based on
the combined
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007