Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 4
Application No. 08/090245
Claim 87 will stand or fall together with claim 86. Claims 89 and 90 will stand or
fall together with claim 88. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
DISCUSSION
“The test for obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed
invention in any or all of the references but rather what the references taken
collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be
familiar with them.” In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 851, 146 USPQ 183,
186 (CCPA 1965).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), Schochetman discloses “a
method for the preparation and use of [catalytic] monoclonal antibodies as
convenient, readily obtainable and inexpensive catalysts having a degree of
specificity and efficiency of action not previously achievable in the catalytic
arts….” While Schochetman does not disclose a catalytic antibody immobilized
on a surface of, or on a surface associated with, a sensing means, the examiner
emphasizes (Answer, page 5), Schochetman discloses “[i]n addition to solution
phase and emulsion reaction systems, suitable conditions also include the use of
support materials to which the monoclonal antibody is attached. Such support
materials are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art as are methods for
attaching monoclonal antibodies to them….”
The examiner relies on Schenck and Conover (id.), as “representative of
the state of the art of enzyme sensors and antibody sensors at the time of the
invention.” According to the examiner (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 5-6),
Schenck discloses a field effect transistor which senses and
measures the binding of a substrate to an antibody which is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007