Appeal No. 1997-0204
Application No. 08/400,786
the separation matrix, prior to their use, so as not to impair
the plasma separating properties of the separation matrix.
See column 6, lines 8-18. Even if HEPES is not removed from
the separation matrix described in Wilk as alleged by the
examiner (Answer, page 13-14), Wilk's example 2 shows at best
the inclusion only 10 millimolar of HEPES in the separation
matrix (Wilk, column 8, lines 48-51). Thus, we agree with
appellants that the applied prior art as whole would not have
suggested including the claimed amount of HEPES (at least
seven times more than that shown in Wilk) in the separation
matrix of Chu’s assaying device. Accordingly, on this record,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007