Ex Parte KRANTZ et al - Page 3

                Appeal No. 1996-3973                                                                                                         
                Application No. 08/048,657                                                                                                   

                35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over (I) further in view of any of Piejko, Kumar,                                      
                Schaeffer or Przybylowicz.  (III) Claims 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                 
                unpatentable over Przybylowicz in view of Moyer.                                                                             
                        We reverse the examiner’s  rejections and institute new grounds of rejection under                                   
                37 C.F.R.  1.196(b).                                                                                                        
                        In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                                  
                appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective                             
                positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  We make reference to the examiner’s                               
                answer (Paper No. 20, mailed June 11, 1996), to the examiner’s supplemental answer (Paper No.                                
                22, mailed October 1, 1996), to the examiner’s second supplemental answer (Paper No. 24,                                     
                mailed December 17, 1996) and to the examiner’s third supplemental answer (Paper No. 26,                                     
                mailed February 13, 1997) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections and to the                               
                appellants’ brief (Paper No. 19, filed May 17, 1996), to the appellants’ reply brief (Paper No. 21,                          
                filed July 16, 1996), to the appellants’ second reply brief (Paper No. 23, filed October 15, 1996)                           
                and to the appellants’ third reply brief (Paper No. 25, filed January 6, 1997) for the appellants’                           
                arguments thereagainst.                                                                                                      
                                                            THE INVENTION                                                                    
                        The claimed invention is directed to a multilayered test strip for determining an analyte or                         
                “active species,” e.g., glucose, (claims 1-13 and 17-19) and to its manufacture (claims 14-16).                              
                The test strip comprises (i) an apertured inert backing layer overlying (ii) a one or two layered                            
                                                                    - 3 -                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007