Appeal No. 1997-0204
Application No. 08/400,786
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
the examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded. We
reverse each of the examiner’s § 103 rejections for
essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief. We add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a device for
detecting an analyte in a biological fluid. The device
includes “a separation matrix containing an agglutinating
agent and between 70 and 150 millimolar of 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-
1-piperazine-ethanesulfonic acid (HEPES)” and means for
detecting the analyte. See claim 28. The presence of the
HEPES buffer in the separation matrix is said to provide a
faster endpoint detection. Id.
The examiner states that both Chu ‘485 and ‘843 disclose
essentially the device recited in claims 28, except that they
fail to include between 70 and 150 millimolar of HEPES in
their separation matrix. See Answer, pages 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
The examiner then relies on Wilk to demonstrate that it would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007