Appeal No. 2006-0258 Page 8
Application No. 09/755,747
This leaves Exhibits 7 and 8. As appellant explains (Brief, bridging
paragraph, pages 9-10 and 11), as a result of from “a corporate merger/
restructuring, Boehringer-Mannheim was renamed Roche Molecular
Biochemicals on March 5, 1998 (see Exhibit 8 . . .), which company was then
subsequently re-named Roche Applied Science. The product formerly marketed
under the Boehringer-Mannheim name is now sold by Roche Applied Science
under the trademark StreptaWell (see Exhibit 7).”
Upon review of Exhibits 7 and 8, we find that like Exhibits 4-6, Exhibits 7
and 8 do not disclose whether the plates contain a streptavidin monolayer.
Accordingly, we do not find Exhibits 7 and 8 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.”
Having found that Exhibits 1-8 do not resolve the issue before us, we
move to the remaining two pieces of evidence that appellant relies upon to
support his position - the Strohner Declaration, and the Jordan reference.
According to Strohner (Strohner Declaration, paragraph 2), “[r]egardless of
coating procedure details, immobilization of streptavidin onto solid-surfaces (such
as plastic microtiter plates and membranes) will result in a reactive streptavidin
monolayer. DNA molecules which are bound to this reactive streptavidin
monolayer will inevitably form a superimposed DNA monolayer.” While the
examiner asserts (Answer, page 17), that weight was given to the Strohner
Declaration, the opinion expressed therein is rebutted by the Jordan reference.
Assembled Monolayer.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007