Appeal No. 2003-2084 Page 15
Application No. 08/241,061
The examiner's rejection of claims 98-102 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon
Kinoshita is reversed.
6. Rejection of claims 99-102 as anticipated by Marini.
The reasons given by the examiner in regard to this rejection are that:
Marini et al teach a simple procedure to bind to haptens, drugs,
peptides (refers to ligand analogues of the instant claims) selectively
through their amino or carboxyl group to a spacer (refers to linkage site of
the instant claims). The reference specifically teach conjugation of
chemical spacers to acetylated gelatin (refers to crosstalk inhibitor
comprising analogue of the linkage site). The reference anticipates the
claimed invention.
Examiner's Answer, page 11. Again, the examiner has not taken into account that
claims 99-102 require three components. The examiner has not pointed to any specific
composition described in Marini which comprises the three components required by
claims 99-102 on appeal.
The examiner's rejection of claims 99-102 as anticipated by Marini is reversed.
7. Rejection of claims 99-102 as anticipated by Schuurs.
The examiner's statement of the rejection reads as follows: "Schuurs et al. teach
immuno assay composition comprising, ligand analogue conjugate (estroidal-17-
succinyl-HRP), a cross talk inhibitor (estroil which has analogue of the linkage site).
The reference clearly anticipates the claimed invention." Examiner’s Answer, page 11.
Once again, the examiner has not taken into account that the compositions of claims
99-102 must have three components not two and has not pointed to any specific
composition described in Schuurs which comprises the three components required by
claims 99-102.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007