Ex Parte NAKAMURA et al - Page 14


                    Appeal No.  1997-3503                                                                                                   
                    Application No.  08/172,866                                                                                             

                            Appellants do not separately argue this rejection.  It appears that                                             
                    appellants’ rely on their previous arguments regarding the teachings of the prior                                       
                    art.  Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra we find no error in the                                                
                    examiner’s rejection.  Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims                                        
                    43, 44, 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over ‘061, ‘622, Sakuma and                                                     
                    Rosenfield further in view of Forrest.                                                                                  
                    Claim 49:                                                                                                               
                            The examiner argues (Answer, page 9) that ‘061, ‘622, Sakuma and                                                
                    Rosenfield13 “differ from the instant invention in that they do not specify that the                                    
                    particles can be colored.”  To make up for this deficiency, the examiner applies                                        
                    ‘813.  According to the examiner (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 9-10):                                              
                            It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to                                              
                            color the particles of the assay of the references as in Ikeda et al.                                           
                            (‘813) since it is well known that colored particles are more easily                                            
                            detected in a particle agglutination immunoassay, and Ikeda et al.                                              
                            (‘061) specifically suggest utilizing gelatin particles such as those of                                        
                            Ikeda et al. (‘813) which can easily be colored as demonstrated.                                                
                            Appellants do not separately argue this rejection.  It appears that                                             
                    appellants’ rely on their previous arguments regarding the teachings of the prior                                       
                    art.  Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra we find no error in the                                                
                    examiner’s rejection.  Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 49                                      
                    under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over ‘061, ‘622, Sakuma and Rosenfield further in view of                                         

                                                                                                                                            
                    13 We note that Rosenfield was not included in the statement of the rejection.                                          
                    However, the statement of the rejection refers to the prior art combination for the                                     
                    rejection of claims 39, 40, 42 and 46-48 that includes Rosenfield.  Therefore, it                                       
                    appears that the exclusion of Rosenfield in the statement of this rejection was a                                       
                    typographical error.  This typographical error was corrected herein above.                                              

                                                                     14                                                                     



Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007