Appeal No. 2006-2198 Page 6
Application No. 10/074,499
USQP2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The combination of ibuprofen and
pseudoephedrine in a single dosage was “clearly suggested by the prior art including
CO-TYLENOL®, which combined an analgesic with pseudoephedrine into a single
tablet”; “[i]buprofen was a known analgesic that was interchangeable with either aspirin
or acetaminophen.”).
Here, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to substitute microparticles
made from an organic conductor such as polyaniline for the gold particles used by Kim.
The prior art would have suggested such a modification of Kim’s device because Sigal
teaches that microparticles made from gold and those made from organic conductors
were “well known in the art” and were both known to be suitable for applications
requiring conductive microparticles.
Appellants argue that the cited references would not have led those skilled in the
art to eliminate the gold particles from Kim’s system and attach the polyaniline polymers
directly to analyte-specific antibodies, because Kim teaches away from that approach.
See the Reply Brief, pages 16-18.
It is immaterial whether the references would have led those skilled in the art to
modify Kim’s system to eliminate the electrically conductive particles altogether. That
rationale is not the basis of the rejection. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 6 (“[I]t
would have been obvious . . . to substitute an organic polyaniline polymer for gold
metal.”) and page 13 (“Substituting a conductive polymer bead for the gold bead does
not negate the necessary placement of the polyaniline strings on the surface.”).
Appellants also argue that “[u]sing the polymer beads of Sigal et al. in place of
the gold particles of Kim et al. does nothing to solve the conductivity problems
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007