Appeal No. 2006-2198 Page 5
Application No. 10/074,499
Kim explains that gold particles performed poorly when used alone as a label,
perhaps because of proteins forming a shell around the gold particles and inhibiting
“electron hopping.” Page 913, paragraph bridging the columns. Kim teaches that
polyaniline polymers were attached to the surface of the gold particles to “bridge the
neighboring particles or at least bring them closer to improve the charge-transfer state.”
Page 913, right-hand column. Kim discloses that addition of polyaniline to the gold
particles “enhanced the electric conduction.” Id.
Sigal teaches the use of electrically conductive microparticles in electrochemi-
luminescence assays. See the abstract. Sigal teaches that “[t]he preparation of
conductive particles is well known in the art. . . . For example, conductive microparticles
may be prepared that comprise metals, for example, gold, silver, platinum, palladium,
zinc, iron, nickel, lead, and copper. . . . Conductive microparticles may comprise
graphitic carbon (e.g., carbon black, graphitic nanotubes, or fullerenes). . . . Conductive
microparticles may comprise organic conductors, for example, polypyrrole,
polythiophene, polyaniline, and polyacetylene.” Col. 4, line 55 to col. 5, line 7
(emphasis added).
To those of ordinary skill in an art, it is generally obvious to alter a known product
by substituting a known equivalent for one of its components. See, e.g., Hotchkiss v.
Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850) (substitution of porcelain door knob in known process
of making metal or wood door knobs held obvious); In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343,
41 USPQ2d 1451, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the applicants merely substituted
one element known in the art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for
obviousness].”); Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007