Appeal No. 2002-1360 Page 10
Application No. 09/133,942
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “The test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider
all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior
art.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Here again, we agree with Appellant that the cited references do not
support the examiner’s rejection. The examiner characterizes Craig as teaching
a “method of agglutination where antibodies are not adhered to an insoluble
support.” See the Examiner’s Answer, page 7. The examiner, however, cites
nothing in the reference to support that interpretation.
We agree with Appellant’s interpretation of the reference: in Craig’s
assay, the antibodies are attached to an insoluble support, because the polymer
particles disclosed by Craig are insoluble. For example, in discussing the
process of binding antibody to the disclosed polymer particles, Craig teaches that
[a]fter sufficient time has elapsed to allow covalent attachment, a
separation of particle reagent from the suspending buffered
medium is effected, usually by centrifugation, although filtration,
gravitational settling, etc. would suffice to allow the removal of
unbound protein.
Column 10, lines 47-52.
Since Craig teaches that the particle-bound antibodies can be separated
from the medium by centrifugation, filtration or gravitational settling, it necessarily
follows that the particles are insoluble; soluble reagents cannot be taken out of
solution by centrifugation, filtration, or settling. Thus, neither Maehara nor Craig
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007