Appeal No. 2001-0059 Page 2
Application No. 08/530,370
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Miyazaki et al. (Miyazaki) 5,229,302 Jul. 20, 1993
Cornell et al. (Cornell I) 5,443,955 Aug. 22, 1995
Cornell et al. (Cornell II) WO 90/08783 Aug. 9, 1990
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Cornell
II; claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Cornell II and
Miyazaki; while claims 1-7 and 9 stand rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,443,955
(Cornell I).
We reverse all three of the examiner=s rejections.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness
The examiner has rejected claims 1-10 as obvious over Cornell II, and claim 11
as obvious over Cornell II and Miyazaki. Claim 1, which represents the invention in its
broadest aspect, is directed to an analytical membrane comprising an array of closely
packed self-assembling amphiphilic molecules and a plurality of first and second
receptor molecules reactive with two different sites on an analyte. The first receptor
molecules are Aprevented from lateral diffusion within the membrane whilst the second
receptor molecules are free to diffuse laterally within the membrane,@ and the claim
requires that Athe ratio of first receptor molecules to second receptor molecules is 10:1
or greater.@
Cornell II describes membranes that meet all of the limitations of claim 1 except
for the specified ratio. According to the examiner, however, one skilled in the art would
have been Amotivat[ed] to optimize the ratio of first receptor molecules to second
receptor molecules@ in the manner required by the claims because Cornell II teaches
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007