Appeal No. 2001-0544 Page 10
Application No. 08/195,048
reasoned that the method defined in claim 25 is not limited to an enzyme
immunoassay, while “[t]hroughout the specification it is clear that the only
contemplated use of the claimed wash solution is in conjunction with an enzyme
immunoassay for stabilization of the enzyme label. No where [sic] does the
specification suggest or even hint that the claimed wash solution would be useful
in any other kind of immunoassay.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5 (emphasis in
original). Thus, the examiner concluded, the specification does not adequately
support the method of claim 25, which encompasses “any and all types of
immunoassays.” Id.
We agree. The specification makes clear that it is the phenol-containing
wash solution that distinguishes the claimed method from prior art assays. See
page 1, line 22 (“Enzyme immunoassays as such are known.”); page 1, lines
25-26 (“Solid phases for use in such enzyme immunoassays are likewise
known.”); page 1, lines 32-34 (“The known washing solutions . . . are composed,
for example, of detergent-containing phosphate buffers.”). See also page 2, lines
7-10 (“The present invention was therefore based on the object of finding a
washing solution whose use in instruments makes possible correct completion of
the ELISA even on immediate use of these devices.”); page 2, lines 19-25 (“It
has now been found, surprisingly, that the addition of stabilizers achieves this
object. . . . Stabilizers within the meaning of this invention are substances which
stabilize the labeling enzyme, such as, for example, tobramycin, phenol and
phenol derivatives.”); page 3, lines 20-23 (“Preferred stabilizers are phenols and
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007