Appeal No. 2006-2198 Page 8
Application No. 10/074,499
3. Obviousness based on Kim, Sigal, and Roberts
The examiner also rejected claims 3, 10, 22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious in view of Kim, Sigal, and Roberts.3 The examiner relied on Kim and Sigal
for the disclosures discussed above, but acknowledged that neither reference teaches a
multiple array. The examiner cited Roberts for its disclosure of “multiple sets of
interdigitated electrode arrays . . . in order to perform simultaneous multiple analyte
detection and assay a test sample for a plurality of analytes.” Examiner’s Answer,
pages 7-8. The examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious at the time of
the invention to modify the method of Kim et al[.] and Sigal et al[.] with a test device that
includes multiple sets of interdigitated electrode arrays . . . as taught by Roberts et al[.],
in order to perform simultaneous multiple analyte detection and assay a test sample for
a plurality of analytes.” Id., page 8.
We agree with the examiner that the device of claim 22 would have been prima
facie obvious in view of the cited references. As discussed above, Kim and Sigal show
that the device of claim 1 would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 22 is directed to the same device, “as a multiple array of devices grouped
together separately on the substrate so that multiple analytes can be detected
simultaneously from the same sample.”
Roberts discloses an immunoassay device in which the signal is measured
electrochemically. See column 5, line 55 to column 6, line 30. Roberts also teaches
that “[w]ith the test devices and methods of the invention, one may also assay a test
sample for a plurality of analytes such as toxic chemicals, or screen for one or more of a
3 Roberts et al., U.S. Patent 5,958,791, issued Sept. 28, 1999
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007