Appeal No. 2001-1409 Page 4
Application No. 09/044,214
Discussion
The claims are directed to an immunoassay method and kit. Claim 1 is
representative of the kit claims. Claim 1 is directed to a kit comprising disease-
specific antigens immobilized on a solid flow-through substrate, a blocking agent,
a filter, secondary antibodies specific to the antibodies of interest, and a label to
detect the disease-specific antibodies. Claim 8 is representative of the method
claims and is directed to a method comprising the following steps: immobilizing
disease-specific antigens on a solid flow-through substrate, blocking the
substrate, gathering a saliva sample and separating particulate matter from the
sample by filtration or centrifugation, spotting the treated saliva sample on the
solid substrate, contacting the substrate with a label, and “[d]etecting and reading
the intensity of the label in less than 5 minutes.”
The examiner rejected both the method claims and the kit claims as
obvious in view of Todd and Archetti. In addition, the examiner rejected
dependent claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 as obvious in view of Todd, Archetti, Brown,
and Maes. Both rejections rely on the same combination of Todd and Archetti.
The examiner characterized Todd as teaching an immunoassay (kit and
method) for detecting specific antibodies using immobilized antigen and a label,
where the sample tested can be saliva. She acknowledged that Todd does not
disclose a separating device (i.e., centrifuge or filter), but cited Archetti as
meeting this limitation. Examiner’s Answer, pages 2-3. She concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to remove undesired materials from
the saliva samples prior to assaying because Archetti discloses that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007