Appeal No. 2006-1563
Application No. 09/839,778
there is no motivation to combine Jackowski and Sawai (Brief, page 13), appellants fail
to specifically address or find fault with the examiner’s indicated motivation to combine
the cited references.
Appellants argue that Jackowski and Sawai fail to disclose "stimulating a light
signal from a reactive element, which is indicative of a rate of reaction between the
analyte of interest and the type of reactive element from which the light signal is
stimulated", as required by claim 10. Brief, page 13. The Examiner finds Sawai
discloses "a method for quantitative determination of antigens in a sample by evaluating
the rate of increase in absorbance or percent absorption per unit time." Col. 11, lines
36-44. Answer, page 12. The appellants fail to address the examiner's arguments,
either in the Brief or Reply Brief. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 10. Claims
7 and 11-12, fall with claim 10.
We find the examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support a prima facie
case of obviousness which remains unrebutted by appellants. In view of the above, the
rejection of the claims for obviousness over Jackowski in view of Sawai is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Jackowski is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7 and 10-12 under 35
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007