Appeal No. 2002-1360 Page 9
Application No. 09/133,942
3. Obviousness
The examiner also rejected all of the claims as obvious in view of the
disclosures of Craig and Maehara. According to the examiner, Craig discloses
an immunoassay that meets all of the limitations of claim 1 except that Craig
does not disclose the use of anti-UTI antibodies in the assay. See the
Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-6. Maehara teaches anti-UTI antibodies. The
examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious at the time of applicant[’]s
invention to use the method of agglutination where antibodies are not adhered to
an insoluble support as taught by Craig et al., with the antibodies of Maehara et
al., because Maehara et al., teach that it is well known i[n] the art to use UTI
antibodies to detect urinary trypsin inhibitor in agglutination assays.” Id., page 7.
Appellant argues that “Craig specifically teaches that the reactant (i.e.
antibody in the context of the present detection reaction) be bonded to the
polymer particles. Thus, Craig merely is teaching an insoluble support that is
considered to possess certain useful properties. As such, Craig also teaches
directly away from claim 1, which requires addition of antibody that is not
adhered to an insoluble support.” Appeal Brief, page 6. Appellant also argues
that “[e]ven if this combination is made . . . at best the combination would
suggest that an antibody against UTI could be bonded to the Craig shell-core
polymer particle. This still fails to suggest the addition of antibody not adhered to
an insoluble . . . support as required by claim 1.” Id.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007