Appeal 2006-2372
Application 10/854,708
can be in solid form . . .” (id.). The Examiner relies on Brady to make up for
this deficiency in Jennings.
According to the Examiner Brady teaches “a method and kit for
measuring platelet function” (id.). In this regard, the Examiner finds that
Brady teaches “that the components in the kit, including the platelet agonist,
can be present in a solid, lyophilized form” (id.).
Based on this evidence the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the instant invention to provide the platelet
activation agonist in the platelet aggregation assay taught by
Jennings . . . in a solid form since Brady . . . teach that it is
advantageous to provide the reagents used in a platelet assay in
a solid, lyophilized form so as to preserve the reagents for a
long period of time until use, and thus extend the shelf life of
the reagents.
(Answer 6.)
We find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
In response, Appellant’s only argument is that like Jennings, Brady
also teaches a two tube method and therefore does not make up for
Appellant’s perceived deficiency in Jennings (Br. 7). However, for the
reason discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, and
instead find that Jennings would have suggested a “single tube” method to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jennings and
Brady. Since they are not separately argued, claims 7, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19
fall together with claim 6.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013