Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 8
Application No. 08/090245
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 13), “Schochetman does not
teach or suggest using a catalytic antibody contained in or on the cell, a
component of a cell, or a tissue.” Therefore, appellants opine (id.), “[i]t would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, that the catalytic antibody would remain accessible to the analyte of
interest when it was contained within a larger complex.” While appellants
appreciate “that Conover discloses that whole cells or tissues maybe immobilized
on sensors … [appellants argue that] neither Schochetman nor Conover teach or
suggest that catalytic antibodies in cells or tissues would produce measurable
and transducible signals.” Reply Brief, page 15. Accordingly appellants
conclude (Brief, page 13), “Schenck and Conover, alone or in combination, fail to
compensate for the deficiencies of Schochetman.”
As we understand appellants’ argument, it is not that the prior art fails to
recognize that catalytic antibodies can be immobilized on a cell, component of a
cell or a tissue, instead, appellants’ argument is that the analyte would not be
accessible to a catalytic antibody contained in cells/tissues or a “larger complex.”
Claim 85, however, is not so limited. Instead, claim 85 is drafted broadly to
include a catalytically active antibody or fragment on a cell, component of a cell
or a tissue. In our opinion, in contrast to appellants’ argument, a catalytically
active antibody on a cell/tissue or component of a cell would be accessible to an
analyte. See also, Answer, page 11 (“The claim is not limited to those
embodiments wherein the antibody is necessarily inside the cell.”). Therefore,
we are not persuaded by appellants’ argument.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007