Appeal No. 2001-0544 Page 13
Application No. 08/195,048
location of the controls to the console,” id. at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503-04,
claims that lacked this limitation were held invalid for lack of descriptive support.
Gentry Gallery compels the conclusion in this case that the specification
does not adequately describe the invention of claim 25. Just as the disclosure in
Gentry Gallery unambiguously limited the location of the controls to the console,
the disclosure in this application unambiguously limits the assay method to
enzyme immunoassays. See pages 1-3, cited above. In addition, the claim is
limited to methods “carried out by an instrument.” The specification defines
“instrument” as follows: “Instruments within the meaning of this invention are all
instruments with whose aid washing steps in enzyme immunoassays can be
carried out mechanically, irrespective of whether these instruments are able to
carry out further steps in completing ELISA assays” (emphases added).
In Gentry Gallery, locating the controls outside the console was outside
the stated purpose of the invention. Similarly here, the “invention was . . . 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.” Specification, page 2, lines 7-10 (emphasis added). The specification
thus makes clear that assays other than enzyme immunoassays are outside the
stated purpose of the invention. In Gentry Gallery, all the original claims required
that the controls be located on the console. In this case, all the original claims
were limited to enzyme immunoassays. See the originally filed claims (especially
claims 1, 8, and 13).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007