Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 3
Application No. 08/090245
said catalytic monoclonal antibody or fragment thereof being
capable of catalyzing a chemical reaction, wherein at least one
reactant is converted to at least one product by forming an antibody
reactant complex, catalytically converting said complexed reactant
to said product and releasing said product from said complex
thereby regenerating said antibody or fragment, wherein said
chemical reaction occurs in said environment.
(b) detecting by the sensing means the binding of the analyte to the
catalytic monoclonal antibody and transducing information
related to said binding by a transducer;
(c) processing the information generated by the transducer; and
(d) releasing the analyte from the antibody or antibody fragment by
catalyzing said chemical reaction of said analyte and thereby
detecting the analyte of interest in the environment.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Schenck 4,238,757 Dec. 9, 1980
Conover et al. (Conover) 4,713,165 Dec. 15, 1987
Schochetman et al. (Schochetman) 4,888,281 Dec. 19, 1989
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 83-90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Schochetman in view of Schenck and Conover, further in view of appellants
statements as to the state of the art at pages 3-6 of the specification.
We affirm the rejection of claims 83-87, and reverse the rejection of claims
88-90.
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants set forth the following four groupings of claims: I. claims 83
and 84; II. claim 85; III. claims 86 and 87; and IV. claims 88-90. Brief, page 6. In
response to appellants’ claim groupings we limit our discussion to representative
claims 83, 85, 86 and 88. Claim 84 will stand or fall together with claim 83.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007