Appeal No. 1997-3503
Application No. 08/172,866
‘813.
Claims 29, 31, 35-40, 42 and 46-49:
According to the examiner (Answer, page 10):
Asakura et al. teach an immunoassay for immunosuppressive
acidic protein (IAP) wherein anti-IAP antibody is immobilized
beforehand on the bottom surface of a test vessel…. The test
vessel may be a glass or platic test tube, but a microplate is
preferred. The microplate has a U-shaped or V-shaped bottom….
[T]he test reagent (a support with anti-IAP antibody) is added and
the reaction of this reagent and the IAP is detected. The support is
a colored organic or inorganic material … When IAP is present in
the test vessel, an agglutination reaction takes place between it an
[sic] the anti-IAP antibody and forms a positive image…. When the
support is , e.g. colored beads, the reaction is detected visually….
When IAP is not present, the agglutination reaction does not take
place, and the test reagent collects at a point in the center of the
bottom of the tube….
The examiner explains (Answer page 10) that “Asakura et al. differ from
the instant invention in that they do not specify that the particles may be
magnetic.” However, to make up for this deficiency the examiner applies
(Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 10-11) ‘622 to teach magnetic gelatin or
magnetic latex particles and the advantages of this particles over traditional
particles.
Appellants state (Brief, page 21) that “[i]t is respectfully submitted that the
Final Rejection has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the combination of references is
proper, for the reasons discussed above, it is respectfully submitted that the
combination would not lead to the claimed invention.” Appellants did not provide
a statement in the Brief as to why they believe the examiner “failed to set forth a
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007