Appeal No. 2001-1589 Page 5
Application No. 08/769,077
[T]he rise or fall of the troponin I or T concentration in a patient=s blood
over time as determined by analyzing blood samples drawn at several
different times might be used to diagnose the dynamic condition of the
heart, for example, to determined whether the damaged heart is improving
with therapy or continuing to deteriorate.
AUnder 35 U.S.C. ' 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a
single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.@ Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Larue does not meet the
claim limitation requiring contacting a patient sample with troponin C, and therefore
does not anticipate the instant claims. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(a) is reversed.
With respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 18 over the combined disclosures of
Larue and Wicks, we agree with appellants that Wicks does not cure the underlying
deficiency in Larue, and the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 is
reversed as well.
REVERSED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
Toni R. Scheiner ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007