Ex Parte KUNDU et al - Page 2




            Appeal No.2001-1715                                                                               
            Application No. 08/730,892                                                                        


                                                BACKGROUND                                                    
                   According to Appellants, the invention relates to bioactive porous partition members       
            useful in an assay system.  Specifically, the invention is directed to an assay system for        
            testing the coagulation function of blood including platelet aggregation.  (Brief, p. 2).  Claim  
            1, which is representative of the claimed invention, appears below:                               
                   1.  A porous partition member, wherein the porous partition member                         
                   comprises a porous material having an aperture and having incorporated and                 
                   dried therein at least one agent capable of initiating the blood coagulation               
                   process or platelet aggregation in blood.                                                  

                                              CITED PRIOR ART                                                 
                   As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:           
            Przybylowicz et al.  (Przybylowicz)   3,992,158                  Nov.  16, 1976                   
            von der Goltz                         5,051,239                  Sep.  24, 1991                   
                   The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3, 5-11 and 19-24 as unpatentable under 35              
            U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of von der Goltz and Przybylowicz.                
            (Answer, p. 4).                                                                                   
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and              
            Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs.           



                                                      2                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007