Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 7
Application No. 08/090245
Conover detects analytes via detection of a product of an enzyme-catalyzed
reaction.”
In conclusion, appellants argue (Brief, page 13), “the combination of
Schochetman and Schenck would yield a device for measuring the rate of
catalysis and not analyte concentration.” We note, however, that claim 83 does
not require the measurement of analyte concentration. Claim 83 requires only
that the catalytically active antibody or fragment catalyze a chemical reaction
(e.g., a physical or chemical change in an environment) that is detected by the
sensing means. In our opinion, measuring the rate of catalysis, as appellants
admit is taught by Schochetman and Schenck, is just such a physical or chemical
change in an environment as is required by claim 83.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 83 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. As set forth above, claim 84 falls together with claim 83.
Claim 85:
According to the examiner (id.), claim 85 “requires that the catalytic
antibody be ‘contained in or on a cell, a component of a cell, or a tissue.’ A
component of a cell is literally any … molecular fragment or molecule found
therein. Thus immobilization on a cellulose acetate membrane, both cellulose
and acetate are components of cells, would suffice to meet the required
limitation.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007