Appeal No. 2002-1360 Page 7
Application No. 09/133,942
construe the claim term “agglutination” as being equivalent to the art-accepted
term “precipitation”.
2. Anticipation
The examiner rejected claims 1-8 as anticipated by Maehara. The
examiner characterized Maehara as “teach[ing] an agglutination assay using
polyethylene glycol for immunodiffusion of urinary trypsin inhibitor.” Examiner’s
Answer, page 3. According to the examiner, “[t]he samples used in the assay
were human serum from males and females (page 119 para. 3). Antibody was
added to the reaction solution and distributed onto the plate (page 119 para. 2).”
Id., page 4. The examiner concluded that “Maehara et al., teaches a method for
measuring the concentration of UTI [i]n a serum sample containing antibodies
directed against UTI which are not attached to an insoluble support . . . and
measured [sic] the degree of agglutination on immunodiffusion plates.” Id.
Appellant argues that “Maehara, which uses a single radial diffusion
detection, does not anticipate claim 1. In the Maehara single radial diffusion, the
antibodies are fixed in the gel plate and thus are adhered to an insoluble
support.” Appeal Brief, page 5. Appellant notes that Maehara cites a reference
by Mancini4 for a detailed disclosure of the immunodiffusion method. Appellant
argues that Mancini makes clear that the antibody used in the immunodiffusion
assay is added to an agar solution that is then allowed to solidify before being
used in the assay. See the Appeal Brief, page 5.
4 Mancini et al., “Immunochemical quantitation of antigens by single radial immunodiffusion,”
Immunohistochemistry, Vol. 2, pp. 235-254 (1965).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007