Appeal No. 2001-2521 Page 10
Application No. 08/738,464
moiety comprising the steps of . . . (e) detecting the displaced labelled antigen
with a detector for the label” (emphasis added). See also column 4, lines 51-58:
The detection apparatus will be different for each type of label.
When the label is a radiolabel, the detector contains, at least, a
radiation sensor to detect and display the quantity of radiation
detected. If a fluorescent label is used, the detection apparatus
contains at least a light source for exciting the fluorophore-labelled
antigens to fluoresce and a reading means for detecting and
displaying the quantity of fluorescent light generated.
Thus, Ligler suggests that the detector used in the disclosed
chromatographic system must be capable of detecting a label that is attached to
an analyte. Myerholtz’s system, by contrast, detects the analyte itself. Myerholtz
points out that the disclosed system does not require any labeling of the analyte.
See column 18, lines 12-14: “[T]here is no need to derivatize the sample or
related reagent solutions with radioactive, fluorescent, or chemiluminescent
labels.”
The examiner has not adequately explained what would have led a skilled
artisan to combine a chromatographic system that depends on detection of a
label (Ligler) with a detection system that is incapable of detecting a label
(Myerholtz). Since the examiner has not shown that a skilled artisan would have
been led to combine the teachings of Ligler and Myerholtz, the references do not
support a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejections based on Myerholtz
and Ligler are reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007