Appeal No. 2006-0258 Page 7
Application No. 09/755,747
Appellant then directs attention (id.), to Exhibit 2, asserting that Promega
Corporation “markets a 96-well microtitre plate of the type referenced at page 11
of the present specification. In this regard, appellants asserts (id.), “Exhibit 2 is
the product insert literature for Promega’s SAM2-brand biotin capture membrane.
Of particular note is that the very name of the product, SAM, is a well-known
acronym for ‘self-assembled monolayer.’” Appellant refers to Exhibit 35 to
support the assertion that “SAM” is an art recognized acronym for “self-
assembled monolayer.”
Exhibit 2 also does not relate to microtiter plates, but instead refers to a
SAM2® Biotin Capture Membrane. There is no evidence on this record that this
membrane is the same as a microtiter plate. Therefore, Exhibit 2 does not
address the issue before us. Accordingly, we do not find Exhibit 2 persuasive.
According to appellant (id.), “[a] slew of other companies make equivalent
streptavidin-coated surfaces wherein the streptavidin is in the form of a
monolayer on the surface. Examples include Perkin Elmer (see Exhibit 4), Nunc
(Exhibit 5), Upstate (Exhibit 6), and Roche Applied Science (Exhibit 7). . . . They
are all surfaces modified to contain an immobilized streptavidin monolayer.”
While Exhibits 4-6 are directed to microtiter plates, upon review of these
Exhibits we find no disclosure of whether the plates contain a streptavidin
monolayer. Accordingly, we do not find Exhibits 4-6 persuasive with regard to
the issue before us. See also Answer, page 16, where the examiner finds that
these Exhibits “do not directly inform this analysis.”
5 According to appellant (Brief, page 11), “Exhibit 3 is an excerpt from the
www.acronymfinder.com website,” which defines the acronym “SAM” as, inter alia, “Self-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007