Appeal No. 2001-1412 Paper No. 29
Application No. 08/629,177 Page 4
determined per well if different labels (e.g., europium, terbium, samarium and dysprosium
chelates) are used (id., p. 5, ll. 16-20).
According to appellants, the insulating antibody prevents the immobilized
component from contacting the labeled component until sample is added to the well,
thereby dissolving the insulating layer and allowing all components and analyte to contact
one another (brief, pp. 4-5).
OPINION
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be some suggestion or
motivation to modify the reference or combine reference teachings and reasonable
expectation of success. Furthermore, the prior art must teach or suggest all the claim
limitations. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Here, all of the claims on appeal require an analyte specific component
immobilized on a surface of a reaction well in a single continuous region.
Deeg describes an analysis element (device) comprising a carrier layer with dried
reagents and an isolating intermediate layer (insulating layer) prepared by “printing” the
reagents on the carrier layer in discrete rows of continuous microdots using an ink-jet
printer. As shown in Fig. 3, a first reagent set A of discrete rows 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 of
biotinylated antibody <TSH>!Bio (analyte specific component) are immobilized via
streptavidin TBSA-SA (secondary immobilizing reagent) onto a surface of a carrier
layer 2. An inert isolating substance, e.g., of bovine serum albumin and sucrose, is
applied across the “hills” (rows of immobilized antibody) and “valleys” (open spaces
between the rows) of the carrier layer 2 to form one continuous insulating
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007