Appeal No. 1995-4188
Application 07/860,965
antigen in the sample and the labeled antigen (page 225). The
dissociation renders the immunosorbent ready for another
assay. See id. The examiner has not explained, and it is not
apparent, why the relied-upon portion of Maggio is a
disclosure of labeled antigen saturating the antigen-binding
sites of the antibody as required by appellants’ claims.
The examiner argues that Maggio’s statement on page 224
that “[t]he system can also be used to perform other types of
immunoassay, for example, sandwich methods and techniques that
involve a second antibody bound to solid phase” describes
appellants’ displacement system (answer, page 7). The
relevance of this portion of the reference to displacement,
however, is not explained by the examiner and is not apparent.
The examiner does not rely upon Gray for any disclosure
which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Maggio.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient for supporting a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in any of
appellants’ claims. We therefore reverse the examiner’s
rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007