Appeal No. 2001-0544 Page 8
Application No. 08/195,048
sensitivity enhancer of general formula I [i.e., phenol or substituted phenol]);” and
Wehner, column 1, lines 49-55 (“[T]here is provided a process for stabilizing the
activity of peroxidase in solution by the addition of a specific activity stabilizer,
wherein, to the enzyme present in solid or dissolved form, there is added as
activity stabilizer, phenol which optionally contains one or more substituents
selected from lower alkyl radicals and chlorine or bromine atoms.”).
Thus, in both Kricka and Wehner, the advantage disclosed to result from
addition of phenol is gained through the addition of phenol to a peroxidase-
containing solution. In the claimed method, by contrast, the solid phase of the
immunoassay is washed with a phenol-containing solution. The wash solution is
subsequently removed, and only then is the peroxidase- or other enzyme-
containing solution added to detect the presence of bound analyte. See claim
25.
The examiner’s references, and rejection based thereon, do not
adequately address this difference between the prior art and the claimed
process. Specifically, the examiner has not adequately explained why it would
have been obvious to those skilled in the art to add phenol to a wash solution
rather than to an enzyme-containing detection solution as disclosed in the prior
art.
Craig does not provide the requisite motivation. Craig’s disclosure is
concerned only with the advantages to adding a polyoxyethylene ether detergent
(e.g., Triton X-100®) to peroxidase-containing solutions. Craig discloses that
such detergents improve the signal-to-noise ratio in immunoassays (column 2,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007