Appeal No. 2001-1587
Application No. 08/506,268
less handling steps and the result can be determined in a very rapid
and simple manner.
Appellants’ Brief emphasizes that the claims include the limitation of
maintaining contact between the wiping surface and test strip during the assay
procedure. See pages 3-4: “The key point is that the wiping surface must
remain in contact with the contact site while the liquid eluant passes through the
contact site . . . in order to increase the amount of analyte carried downstream for
immunoassay, so that the method of the present invention is simple and yet more
sensitive than prior art methods” (emphasis in original).
Discussion
The examiner rejected all of the claims as obvious over Fitzpatrick, Giegel,
and Baier. The examiner characterized Fitzpatrick as “teach[ing] a device . . .
and an assay . . . for detecting the presence of an analyte in a sample. The
device contains a capillary active, chromatographic test strip having a planar
surface and two ends, with an eluant application zone proximate one end and a
target zone (detection zone) proximate the other end, with a capture zone (trap
zone) in between.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4. According to the examiner,
Fitzpatrick differs from the present claims only in that it “does not teach a wiping
surface for collection of analyte nor conducting the contact of the test strip
surface with the wiping surface with the aid of a contact pressure device.” Id. He
relies on Giegel and Baier to make up these differences, citing Giegel as
“teach[ing] a swab device for collecting a sample from a surface,” and Baier as
“teach[ing] a carrier fleece containing cellulose and/or polyester.” Id.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007