Ex parte MINNICH et al. - Page 7




             Appeal No. 1997-2389                                                                                
             Application No. 08/987,233                                                                          

                          it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to                     
                          insert [the] Mattiasson’s incubation period and metabolic                              
                          determination into Jolley’s immunodetermination method                                 
                          (between the initial inoculation and addition of the biospecific                       
                          reagent) because Fernwood teaches cell growth in the                                   
                          receptacle prior to filtration through and retention on the                            
                          membrane while Mattiasson teaches the specific metabolic                               
                          assay steps of the instant invention; further, one of skill in the                     
                          art would have known that the multiplication of organisms in the                       
                          sample would increase the amount of analyte for detection.                             
                          Moreover, it would have been obvious to subject the sample to                          
                          preliminary biochemical testing or screening (as taught by                             
                          Mattiasson) to identify samples warranting further                                     
                          characterization by highly specific, costly immunoreagents                             
                          because Fernwood teaches that the same sample can be                                   
                          contacted with a series of reagents by contacting the sample                           
                          with a reagent and drawing unreacted reagent through the                               
                          membrane while retaining the sample on the membrane for                                
                          further analysis.                                                                      
                   The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness rests on the               
             examiner.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444  (Fed. Cir. 1992).              
             Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument             
             shift to the applicants.  Id.  In order to meet that burden the examiner must provide a             
             reason, based on the prior art, or knowledge generally available in the art as to why it            
             would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.     
             Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297, n.24, 227 USPQ           
             657, 667, n.24 (Fed. Cir. 1985,. cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986).                                
                   On the record before us, we find that the facts and evidence provided by the                  
             examiner falls short of that which would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill         
             in this art at the time of the invention to modify the assay of Jolley in a manner to arrive at     

                                                       7                                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007