Appeal No. 1997-1770
Application No. 08/235,488
appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief.
For emphasis, we note that the teachings of Edberg are
crucial to each of the rejections before us. Accordingly, we
focus our remarks upon the shortcomings of that reference.
None of the other references applied by the examiner in
conjunction with Edberg cure deficiencies of the primary
reference.
As indicated by appellants, a fair reading of the Edberg
disclosure reveals a crucial difference between the teachings
of Edberg and appellants’ invention. Where the focus is on
detection of E. coli, Edberg suggests using a substrate which
is metabolizable by E. coli, e.g. a $-glucuronidase substrate.
To the contrary, appellants employ a unique combination of a
$-D-galactosidase substrate and a carbon source metabolizable
by a plurality of coliform species but not metabolizable by E.
coli. The examiner has failed to address this critical
difference between Edberg and the presently claimed invention.
In particular, the examiner has failed to explain why it would
have been obvious from Edberg within the context of 35 U.S.C.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007