Appeal No. 2006-1563
Application No. 09/839,778
which the detection and measurement of one analyte is meaningful with respect to the
other analytes detected and measured.” Col. 9, lines 1-5. Jackowski additionally states
that the "method comprises detecting and measuring at least three markers associated
with cardiac disorder simultaneously…” Col. 9., lines 37-39. Thus, we agree with the
examiner that “Jackowski teaches continuing the assay over a period of time until an
analyte has been determined to be present in an amount indicative of a disease state.”
Answer, page 10.
As to claim 2, the examiner argues that the step of continuing the evaluation of
the presence of at least one other analyte after the report in order to accurately
determine the presence or concentration of the analyte is described at column 22, lines
1-12 of Jackowski. Id. Appellant argues that the description of Jackowski is limited to
"effecting evaluations of the presence of analytes in a sample at single points in time,
rather than continuously." Brief, page 10. As indicated above, Jackowski teaches that
their assay is conducted over a period of time and that the level of each marker
simultaneously present in the sample will be assessed to yield meaningful data. Col.
22, line 19. Therefore, we are not persuaded by appellants’ argument.
With regard to claim 8, the examiner argues that Jackowski describes that the
"reactive elements are arranged in a pattern on the waveguide surface", (col. 30, line
67, col. 31, lines 8-9, and lines 15-16, see figure 10, disclosing the arrangement of the
antibodies, i.e., reactive elements.)" Answer, page 4. Appellants argue that this
embodiment is not disclosed by Jackowski, but fail to specifically point out the defect in
the examiner’s arguments. Thus, we are not persuaded by appellants' arguments with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007