Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 6
Application No. 08/090245
Claim 83:
The examiner finds (Answer, page 8), “Schochetman clearly teaches the
desirability to produce catalytic antibodies directed against reactants for which
enzymes are either unknown or not readily available … and suggests that they
would have utility when immobilized….” In addition, the examiner finds (id.):
In view of the extensive use of immobilized enzymes and antibodies
in the prior art [e.g., Schenck and Conover] it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have immobilized such
catalytic monoclonal antibodies on known sensors so as to permit
monitoring of changes in an environment containing a reactant for
which there was no previously known or readily available enzyme.
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 9), “Schochetman does not
disclose the immobilization of catalytic antibodies on a sensor or methods of
using such sensors having immobilized catalytic antibodies as claimed.” In
addition, appellants argue (Brief, page 9), Schenck does not make up for the
deficiency in Schochetman because Schenck is limited to “conventional
antibodies (i.e., non-catalytic antibodies).” According to appellants (Brief, page
10), in Schenck “[a]s the antigen saturates the antibody, a specific antigen-
antibody complex is formed which can then be measured. However, this binding
reaction is not readily reversible. The antibody-based sensor thus becomes
saturated and the presence of or excess analytes in a subsequent sample cannot
be detected.” In addition, appellants argue (Brief, page 10), Conover fails to
make up for the deficiency in Schochetman. According to appellants (Brief, page
11), “Conover merely relates to a conventional enzyme biosensor coupled to an
ion-selective electrode detection means. As a conventional enzyme biosensor,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007