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