Appeal No. 2001-0692 Page 14
Application No. 09/163,572
Summary
The meaning of the claims is sufficiently clear when they are read in light
of the specification. We therefore reverse the rejection for indefiniteness. The
method defined by claim 1 reads on the assay method disclosed by Evans, and
we therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 for anticipation. Claims 2-4 and 9 fall
with claim 1. However, we reverse the rejection for obviousness, because the
prior art would not have led those skilled in the art to combine the teachings of
the cited references. Therefore, claims 8, 10, 13-33, 36, and 37 are not subject
to any outstanding rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART
DONALD E. ADAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LORA M. GREEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007