Appeal No. 1999-1384
Application No. 08/583,912
than half the interaction times described by Kidwell (col. 6, lines 26 and 27).” In
response, the examiner argues (Answer, page 8-9) that:
Appellant [sic] and Ligler et al[.] (‘740) both teach flow control for
regulation of adequate interaction times and, notwithstanding
[a]ppellant’s [sic] apparent assertions to the contrary, there is
nothing in evidence that the desired flow rates in the closed pump
system of [a]ppellant [sic] or Ligler et al[.] (‘740) exceed that which
would be expected in an open gravity-mediated flow system.
In our opinion, the examiner’s response misses appellants’ point. While
the examiner’s response focuses on flow rate, appellants’ argument is directed at
analyte-membrane interaction time. In other words, appellants argue that
according to Kidwell the flow through an open gravity-mediated flow system is
too fast to allow for adequate analyte-membrane interaction times. To solve this
problem Kidwell restricts the flow rate by using a second semi-permeable
membrane or alternatively modifying the pore size and/or surface area of the
membrane (column 6, lines 22-43), to allow for an analyte-membrane interaction
time of one to five minutes. According to appellants (Brief, pages 5-6) if gravity-
mediated flow is too fast for adequate analyte-membrane interaction time,
actively pumping a sample through the system, as claimed, would also be
expected to be too fast, absent something to enhance the analyte-membrane
interaction time to, according to Kidwell, one to five minutes.
On this record we do not disagree with the examiner that the membrane
support taught by Kidwell could be substituted in place of the support media
taught by Ligler. Answer, page 6. We are not persuaded by appellants’
argument (Reply Brief, page 2) that “[n]o motivation exists to combine Kidwell et
al.’s teaching with those of Ligler et al. to result in a flow-immunoassay system
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007