Appeal No. 2001-1650
Application No. 08/898,085
(2) Claims 20 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over
Greenquist in view of Clark.
In each of the obviousness rejections, the examiner initially discusses
Greenquist’s disclosure of a multi-zone or multi-layer test device for the
determination of analyte from a liquid test medium (Examiner’s Answer, pages 3
and 5). The examiner then states that Greenquist differs from the claims “in
failing to teach a vacuum pump to draw a sample across the carrier matrix”
(Examiner’s Answer, page 4; see also page 5). The examiner then points out
that Ijsselmuiden discloses an immunoassay method involving filtration of
antibody and rinsing solutions through nitrocellulose filters pre-coated with
antigen, and that the filtration was achieved by applying vacuum to the lower part
of the device (Examiner’s Answer, page 4). The examiner then provides the
following rationale (Examiner’s Answer, page 4) for combining Greenquist and
Ijsselmuiden:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to use the vacuum pump of
Ijsselmuiden in the device of Greenquist because Ijsselmuiden
teaches that the use of the vacuum pump provides the additional
advantage of a rapid immunoassay and the possibility of testing
multiple antigens in a single run without affecting the time required
for the execution of the assay.
In the second rejection, relying on Clark, instead of Ijsselmuiden, to
supplement Greenquist’s failure to disclose a means for drawing a sample gas
across the gas-and liquid-permeable carrier matrix, the examiner reasons
(Examiner’s Answer, page 6) that Clark should be combined with Greenquist as
follows:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007