Appeal No. 2006-3006 Page 4
Application No. 10/123,713
immobilized on an uppermost surface of said support and separated spatially from
one another on the uppermost surface.” Br. 4. For the purposes of this appeal, we
need focus our attention only on these disputed limitations (see supra. elements 2)
and 3) of the claimed analytical system).
Appellants assert that the properly construed claim 1 requires that the array
members are immobilized on the “uppermost surface” of the claimed support
which “precludes an interpretation that the arrays . . . encompass wells within a
well plate.” Br. 6-7. As we understand it, Appellants interpret “uppermost
surface” to mean the top and highest point of the support. A well (or microwell) is
a depression in the support’s top surface and therefore, in Appellants’ construction,
does not satisfy the claim limitation. They argue that each of Bobrow and Lizardi
teach microwell supports in which the array members are present in the wells, not
on the support’s uppermost surface, which is “inconsistent” with the claimed
subject matter. Id. at 4.
We do not find that Appellants have correctly characterized the disclosure in
Bobrow. As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 7:17-19), Bobrow, in fact,
describes arrays in which the array members are immobilized on the uppermost
surface of a support, not in “microwell strips” as Appellants contend
(Br. 4: 10-11).
Serial four-fold dilutions of rabbit IgG . . . or mouse IgG . . . were spotted
(1 µl) on nitrocellulose strips.
Bobrow, p. 105. A strip of nitrocellulose paper is a flat surface. Consequently,
applying the antibody to it would result in an array on its top and “uppermost
surface” as required by claim 1. Figs. 2-5 of Bobrow illustrate this configuration,
showing also that the arrays of antibodies are separated from each other on the
nitrocellulose paper which meets the limitation in claim 1 that the array members
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013