Appeal No. 2006-2415 Page 11
Application No. 09/410,336
page 1 (emphasis added). Canto’s abstract states that “[t]he overall accuracy of
methylene blue staining for detecting specialized columnar epithelium was 95%.” Id.
Canto summarizes its results by stating that “[i]n conclusion, methylene blue selectively
stains SCE [(specialized columnar epithelium)] in Barrett’s esophagus, including cells
with dysplasia.” Id. at page 6 (emphasis added).
Thus, we agree with the examiner that Canto’s step of washing cells specifically
stained with methylene blue would have reasonably suggested washing breast ducts so
as to remove non-specifically bound detecting agent.
We agree with Appellants that Canto does not suggest that methylene blue
would selectively stain breast cancer cells. Appeal Brief, page 7; Reply Brief, page 6.
However, the examiner has not made that assertion. Rather, the examiner argues that
“Canto et al. teaches an endoscopic procedure comprising an in vivo washing step to
remove the excess of an identifying agent before identifying the location of tumor tissue
within a patient’s body.” Answer, page 20. The examiner urges that “it would have
been understood . . . that such steps improve the specificity of the test by reducing
background noise, or the generation of non-specific, undesired signals.” Id. at page 21.
We agree that one of ordinary skill using antibody-based detecting agents such
as Schmitt-Willich’s to determine the location of cancer cells within breast ducts would
have recognized that washing away non-specifically bound detecting agent before
performing the detecting step, in the manner taught by Canto, would have improved the
diagnostic procedure. In our view, the combination of references cited by the examiner
suggests all of the limitations in claim 33.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007