Ex parte SHIRAHASE et al. - Page 2




                   Appeal No. 1997-0838                                                                                                                             
                   Application 08/235,238                                                                                                                           
                            Claims 1 and 10 are representative and read as follows:                                                                                 
                            Claim 1.  A process for the determination of LDH  in a sample selected from the                                                         
                                                                                                  1                                                                 
                   group consisting of human serum and human plasma, which comprises inhibiting LDH ,                                                               
                                                                                                                                              2                     
                   LDH , LDH , and LDH  in the sample with "-chymotrypsin in the presence of a protein-3        4               5                                                                                                                 
                   denaturating agent and then determining LDH  remaining uninhibited, wherein the LDH1                                                        1                    
                   remaining uninhibited is determined according to a total LDH isozyme assay which                                                                 
                   comprises catalytically developing a chromogen or dye precursor with the LDH isozyme                                                             
                   remaining uninhibited and then measuring absorption in a visible light range or comprises                                                        
                   measuring ultraviolet absorption of coenzyme NADH reduced by catalytic effect of the LDH                                                         
                   isozyme remaining uninhibited.                                                                                                                   

                            Claim 10.  The process of claim 1 wherein the inhibiting of LDH , LDH , LDH  and           2        3        4                          
                   LDH  is carried out while preserving more than 50% of LDH  activity.5                                                                         1                                                            
                            The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                                           
                   Sanford                                         4,250,255                                       Feb. 10, 1981                                    
                   Derwent Abstract (Iatron)                       J6 2278-977-A                                   Mar. 12, 1987                                    
                                                                                                  +                                                                 
                   Selmeci et al. (Selmeci), “The Effect of NADH and NAD  on the Proteolysis of Lactate                                                             
                   Dehydrogenase Isozymes by Trypsin,” Experimentia, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 888-89 (August                                                             
                   15, 1971).                                                                                                                                       
                            The claims stand rejected as follows:2                                                                                                  
                            I.  Claims 1, 4 through 6, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As                                                             
                   evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on Iatron, Selmeci and Sanford.                                                                     
                            II.  Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a non-                                                        
                   enabling disclosure.                                                                                                                             
                            III.  Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking adequate                                                      
                   support in the specification as filed, i.e., as lacking an adequate written description                                                          
                                                                       DISCUSSION                                                                                   

                            2There are two objections to the specification associated with Rejections II and III                                                    
                   (set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Examiner’s Answer).  We do not reach these objections,                                                        
                   as they are petitionable, rather than appealable, matters.                                                                                       
                                                                                 2                                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007