Ex parte MERCOLINO et al. - Page 9


                Appeal No.  1997-2513                                                                           
                Application No.  08/206,917                                                                     
                measured on the flow cytometer’ ….”  Appellants contrast Schwartz (Brief, page 10)              
                from the instant invention which requires that “the emission spectra of the cell                
                markers and fluorescent microparticle are distinguishable (i.e., not matched)….”                
                The examiner does not find appellants’ argument persuasive.  The examiner argues                
                (Answer, page 12) that “Stewart … teaches that the fluorescent particles have                   
                different emission spectra from each other and the sample.”  We are not persuaded               
                by the examiner’s position.                                                                     
                       As set forth in Ecolochem Inc. v. Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361,             
                1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075 (Fed. Cir.  2000) the:                                               
                             “suggestion to combine may be found in explicit or implicit                        
                       teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary                            
                       knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem                 
                       to be solved.” … However, there still must be evidence that “a skilled                   
                       artisan, confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with                      
                       no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements                         
                       from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner                        
                       claimed.” … “[A] rejection cannot be predicated on the mere                              
                       identification … of individual components of claimed limitations.                        
                       Rather particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled                     
                       artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have                          
                       selected these components for combination in the manner                                  
                       claimed.”….  [Citations omitted].                                                        
                       On this record, Schwartz discloses (claim 1) a method of aligning,                       
                compensating and/or calibrating a flow cytometer.  Schwartz discloses (column 8,                
                line 48 to column 9, line 16) that it is important to use beads having the same                 
                emission spectra as the sample in order to “perform accurate compensation                       
                adjustments.”  In contrast, Stewart teaches (abstract) “[a] simple procedure … to               
                simultaneously measure cell concentration and analyze marker positive cell                      
                populations….”                                                                                  

                                                       9                                                        



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007