Appeal No. 2006-2198 Page 9
Application No. 10/074,499
plurality of analytes. In one embodiment, the test device includes multiple sets of
interdigitated electrode arrays. By appropriately controlling the potentials at the
electrodes, different marker ions can be measured and referred back to separate
analyte concentrations.” Col. 25, lines 15-23.
We agree with the examiner that, based this disclosure, “[i]t would have been
obvious at the time of the invention to modify the method [and device] 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.” Examiner’s
Answer, page 8.
Appellants argue that “a single multiple array as taught by Applicants and
illustrated in Figure 3, wherein a plurality of analytes in a mixture can be individually
detected at one of the multiple regions 21A to 21D would not be suggested by the cited
prior art references.” Reply Brief, page 24. See also pages 25-26: “[T]he electrode
arrays of Roberts et al., unlike those arrays taught by Applicants, must be maintained at
a large enough distance so that no electroactive markers can diffuse over the
electrodes in an adjacent measurement portion 106. The design of the device taught by
Applicants does not have this problem with cross over signal. . . . [A]ny signal
measured across the electrodes of any of the regions 21A to 21D is generated by
specific binding of the desired analyte to the region.”
This argument does not persuade us of any error in the examiner’s rejection.
Appellants assert that the device suggested by the prior art differs from the device
shown in Figure 3 of the instant application. Even if this assertion is correct, however, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007