Appeal No. 2004-1934 Page 3
Application No. 09/819,317
comprises linking agents. The matrix is contacted with the laminate with the molecules
being transferred from the matrix to the laminate. The matrix is removed from the
laminate and the laminate is shrunk so that the topographical surface area is greater
than the projected surface area.
There is no real dispute as to what the references teach. Rather, the issue
involved in this appeal is what conclusions should be reached on the basis of these
facts. The examiner has found without dispute from appellants that Halverson teaches
a method of transferring molecules to a laminate. The laminate described by Halverson
is that required by claim 1 on appeal. Furthermore, after the molecules are transferred
to the laminate of Halverson, the laminate is shrunk in the manner required by claim 1
on appeal. See the fact-finding set forth on pages 4-5 of the Examiner’s Answer in
regard to Halverson.
The examiner has identified, without dispute by appellants, that the difference
between the method described in Halverson and that required by claim 1 on appeal is
that Halverson does not explicitly teach that the molecules can be transferred to a
laminate from a matrix. The examiner relies upon Kreisher in this regard.
The examiner has found, again without dispute from appellants, that Kreisher
describes electroblot transfer of molecules from a matrix to an immobilizing material.
See the fact-finding set forth on pages 5-6 of the Examiner’s Answer. On these facts,
the examiner concludes:
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to transfer the molecules onto the
laminates of Halverson using the electroblot method of Kreisher since
Halverson expressly states “‘Affix’ shall include any mode of attaching
reactants to a substrate. Such modes shall include, without limitation,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007