Appeal No. 2005-1610
Application No. 10/054,354
The prior art references cited by the examiner are:
Rikihisa et al. (Rikihisa) WO 99/13720 Mar. 25, 1999
Waner, T, et al., AComparison of a Clinic-based ELISA test kit with the
Immunofluorescence test for the Assay of Ehrlichia canis antibodies in Dogs,@ Journal
of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol. 12, pp. 240-244 (2000)
Grounds of Rejection Maintained
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), as anticipated by Rikihisa.
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), as obvious over Rikihisa in
view of Waner.
DISCUSSION
We find no error in our Decision of December 22, 2005 and therefore, we decline
to grant the relief requested or change our earlier decision in any way.
Appellants request that we read portions of the description and features from the
specification into the claims. Request for Reconsideration, page 6. We decline to do
so.
Appellants now argue that the specification indicates that adding additional amino
acids “to the claimed polypeptides … would be detrimental to the sensitivity and
specificity of assays for the detection of Ehrlichia antibodies.” Request, page 7.
However, appellants chose not to use the transitional phrase “consisting of” in the claim
which would have precluded the addition of amino acids to the claimed sequence. “A
‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007