Appeal No. 1996-1618
Application No. 07/876,804
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Genetics Inst., Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 169 (1991).
The definiteness of claim language is analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing an ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. There has been
no showing on this record by the examiner that one skilled in the art would have any
particular difficulty in determining the meaning of these terms or of being reasonably
apprised of their scope.
Finally, claim 23, from which claim 29 depends, recites a “ligand-bearing
substance.”
For the above reasons, we find the examiner has not carried his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of lack of an enabling disclosure or of indefiniteness.
B. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
All of the claims on appeal require the presence of or preparation of a specific three
layer structure on a piezoelectric crystal substrate having a surface layer of silicon dioxide
containing hydroxyl groups; i.e., (1) a layer of a specifically defined organosilane coupling
agent, e.g., 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GOPS), bound to said substrate; (2) a
single ligand-binding layer attached to said coupling agent by means of said functional
group on said coupling agent, said ligand-binding layer having binding sites thereon for
binding a ligand-bearing substance thereto, e.g., a single layer of avidin; and (3) a single
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007