Appeal No. 2007-0056 Page 8
Application No. 09/906,511
As such, a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to apply the PIDS
technology to the 3-step measurement of size distribution disclosed in . . .
[Kosako].” We disagree.
Appellants recognize (Brief, page 7) that both ‘221 and ‘978 teach particle
size distribution analysis using the PIDS technique. Stated differently, PIDS can
be used to measure the size distribution of non-agglutinated and agglutinated
particles. According to Kosako (column 1, lines 41-44), “[m]easuring the number
of total carriers, in comparison with the number and degree of aggregation of
carriers, determines the concentration of the antigen in the sample.” However,
as Kosako point out (column 1, lines 44-47), “[a] major problem of this method is
that the analyte may be contaminated with spurious particles . . . that decrease
the accuracy of the measurement.” According to Kosako (column 1, lines 48-50),
“[t]hese spurious particles cannot be differentiated if they fall within the size
range of the non-aggregated and aggregated insoluble carriers.” As appellants’
recognize (Brief, bridging paragraph, pages 5-6), ‘211 improves upon
“conventional PIDS measurement techniques” which due to a lack of resolution
are incapable of distinguishing between particles that are reasonably close in
size. See ‘211, column 5, lines 32-48. It goes without saying, however, that
despite the improvements to the PIDS measurement technique, as taught by
‘211, if a “spurious particle” is of the same size as the non-aggregated and/or
aggregated particle the accuracy of the measurement is reduced. Cf. Kosako,
column 1, lines 48-50.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013