Appeal No. 2004-1734
Application No. 08/942,369
Rejection II
The examiner argues, with respect to claims 38-42, that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have added the yeast extract of Odaka to the medium in the method of
Johnson, Libman and Thaller where the motivation would have been to enhance
growth of E. coli and allow for more rapid detection of uropathogens as taught by
Odaka. [Answer, p. 7].
Here, we find that the examiner relies on Odaka solely for its teachings with
respect to adding yeast extract to media employed in the method set forth in
representative claim 20. Since Odaka does not make up for any of the deficiencies
discussed above with respect to the teachings of Johnson, Libman and Thaller, it
reasonably follows that this rejection fails for the reasons set forth for representative
claim 20.
Accordingly, Rejection II is reversed.
Rejections III and IV
Given the reasons set forth above as to why Johnson, Libman, Thaller and
Odaka would have rendered the claimed method of simultaneously detecting target
microorganisms in a biological sample and determining the susceptibility of the
microorganisms to antimicrobial agents, the examiner argues that it would have been
further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the amoxicillin and clavulanic
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007