Ex parte LAWRENCE et al. - Page 8



                 Appeal No.  1999-0123                                                                                    
                 Application No. 08/406,239                                                                               
                         “[T]he 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 we agree with appellants (Brief, page 12) that the disclosure                     
                 of Herrmann “does not apply to the assay disclosed by Zherdev et al., nor is it                          
                 logically or reasonably combined with the assay of Zherdev et al. for various                            
                 reasons.”  Among these reasons, appellants argue (Brief, page 13) that if all the                        
                 assay components were incorporated into the solid support of Zherdev it “would                           
                 defeat the assay, since the final step of the Zherdev et al. assay can only be                           
                 performed after unbound components … have been washed away.”  In addition,                               
                 appellants argue (Brief, page 13) that “a fleece or film [taught by Herrmann] is hardly                  
                 interchangeable with a well plate … there is no suggestion as to how the two                             
                 disclosures can be combined in a practical sense by the routine engineer … and                           
                 there is no motivation to lift the indicator disclosures out of Herrmann et al. and                      
                 incorporate them into Zherdev et al.                                                                     
                         We agree with appellants.  While a person of ordinary skill in the art may                       
                 possess the requisite knowledge and ability to modify the protocol taught by                             
                 Zherdev, the modification is not obvious unless the prior art suggested the                              


                                                            8                                                             



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007