Appeal No. 2006-0484 Page 8
Application No. 09/657,729
This disclosure reasonably appears to anticipate claim 1. The example discloses
providing a sample and a target (antibody to T4 and T4 + T4-glucose oxidase conjugate)
in a test region (electrode array), along with an electrochemical control for the redox
environment (the electrode-and-ammeter system), operating the electrochemical control
to control the redox environment (supplying a +0.40 V potential), and analyzing the
sample using a detection scheme (reading the current as a measure of the amount of T4
in the sample).
Appellant argues that “[m]easuring redox active species in order to quantify
various analytes is not the same as identifying the extent of interaction of a sample and
target species under controlled potential or redox conditions. Again, no mention is
made of poising the electrode at various potentials in the presence of redox mediators
and using an independent detection means . . . in order to study the potential or redox
dependence of interactions between a sample and target species.” Appeal Brief, page
8.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the examiner’s rejection should
be reversed. As with Higgins, the method taught by Weetall meets all the limitations of
claim 1. While Appellant may intend the assay to be used to measure the interaction of
a set of analytes under varying redox conditions, claim 1 is not limited to such an assay.
Claim 1 reads on the method disclosed by Weetall and is therefore unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Weetall. Appellant did not
separately argue claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 47, 49, and 50. Therefore, those claims fall
with claim 1. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007