Ex Parte KRANTZ et al - Page 15




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


                        Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Evans and                               
                Tietz, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ngo and Phillips.  Claim 12 is rejected                           
                under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Evans, Przybylowicz and Tietz taken further in                              
                view of Ngo and Phillips.  Evans, Przybylowicz, Tietz, Ngo and Phillips have been described                                  
                above.  As to claims 8 and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to                             
                modify the multilayered analytical element/test slide of Evans-Przybylowicz-Tietz discussed                                  
                above by coupling the MBTH of Evans to the DMAB of Ngo or Phillips, to improve the                                           
                sensitivity, versatility, safety and specificity of the assay as suggested by Ngo and Phillips.  As to                       
                claim 7, it would have been further obvious to use nylon as the support layer of Evans in the                                
                Evans-Tietz test slide because Phillips discloses nylon as a strong and stable support material                              
                compatible with an MBTH-DMAB dye couple (col. 11, lines 35-38).                                                              
                                                             CONCLUSION                                                                      
                        To summarize, the decision of the examiner (I) to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11-13                           
                under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Daffern in view of Moyer, (II) to reject claims                             
                2, 5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Daffern in view of Moyer and                                 
                further in view of any of Piejko, Kumar, Schaeffer or Pryzybylowicz, and (III) to reject claims                              
                14-19 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Przybylowicz in view of Moyer is                                      
                reversed.                                                                                                                    




                                                                   - 15 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007