Appeal No. 2003-0480 Page 13
Application No. 08/090245
For the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claim 86 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 87 falls together with
claim 86.
Claim 88:
According to step (b) of claim 88, the sensing means detects the binding
of the analyte to the catalytic monoclonal antibody. As appellants point out
(Brief, page 15), “catalysis is utilized not as the basis of the signal generation, but
as a means to regenerate the antibody or antibody fragment on the surface after
the measurement is completed.”
We recognize the examiner’s theory (Answer, page 9), “[g]iven that one
could make a catalytic antibody against an antigen of interest, which antibody
was not terribly efficient as a catalyst … one could measure the amount [of
analyte] bound and then allow the sensor to regenerate over time.” However, in
our opinion, while one could imagine this possibility after reading appellants’
specification, we find no suggestion in the combination of references provided by
the examiner to support such a theory. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 211
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007