Appeal No. 2001-0544 Page 6
Application No. 08/195,048
217 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e must give effect to all claim limitations.”) (emphasis in
original). See also General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH,
972 F.2d 1272, 1275, 23 USPQ2d 1839, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[E]ach claim is
an entity which must be considered as a whole.”) (emphasis in original). The
examiner has not shown that an immunoassay process including a step of
washing with a solution containing phenol or one of the recited phenol derivatives
would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Therefore, the examiner has
not shown the prima facie obviousness of the claimed method as a whole. We
reverse the rejection based on McClune ‘999, McClune ‘983, and Katz.
B. Kricka, Wehner, and Craig
The examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 19, 20, and 25 as obvious in view of
the disclosures of Kricka, Wehner, and Craig. The examiner cited Kricka for
“teach[ing] the use of phenolic compounds, including phenol derivatives having
the instantly claimed substitutions . . . as enhancers of peroxidase activity in
heterogeneous immunoassays.” Examiner’s Answer, page 7. The examiner
conceded that Kricka does not “explicitly suggest the use of phenolic compounds
in the wash solutions of the immunoassay.” Id.
The examiner cited Wehner as “teach[ing] the stabilization of the activity of
peroxidase in solution by the addition of phenol which optionally contains one or
more substituents selected from lower alkyl radicals and chlorine and bromine
atoms.” Examiner’s Answer, page 7. The examiner also noted that Wehner
teaches that the phenol or phenol derivative can be added at any desired point in
time to the enzyme or enzyme conjugate, in either solid or dissolved form, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007