Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 11
Application No. 08/090245
associated with the transducer.” Appellants’ specification also discloses (page
29), “transducers used in prior art biosensors generally fall into three basic
categories: electrochemical; optical; and physical.” At page 33 of appellants’
specification, appellants disclose that “[s]ensors for pH … are examples of optical
fiber-based sensors.”
To highlight the disclosure of Conover we note that claim 1 of Conover is
directed to a sensor for the potentiometric determination of the activity of an ion
or other concentration of a component in a sample comprising inter alia, ion
selective electrodes comprised of an ion selective membrane. According to
claim 5, which depends from claim 1 of Conover, the ion selective membrane is
additionally comprised of an enzyme immobilized on the membrane which
catalyzes a reaction which produces a change in pH … or a substance which is a
substrate of an enzymatic reaction which produces a change in pH. Accordingly,
as appellants recognize (Brief, page 11), “Conover detects analytes via detection
of a product of an enzyme-catalyzed reaction.”
Based on this evidence, we arrive at the same conclusion as the examiner
(Answer, page 12), “it is unclear why it is unreasonable [as appellants argue] to
conclude that catalytic antibodies would also produce transducible signals.” In
the regard, we note appellants’ argument (Brief, page 9), “[c]atalytic antibodies
are not simply substitutes for enzymes. One of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been provided with the motivation or suggestion to replace enzymes with
catalytic antibodies and that catalytic antibodies can replace enzymes as
molecular recognition elements.” According to appellants (Brief, page 12), “[o]ne
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007