Appeal No. 2007-0056 Page 11
Application No. 09/906,511
separately group or argue the claims. Accordingly, the claims will stand or fall
together. Since all claims stand or fall together, we limit our discussion to
representative claim 3. Claims 4-6 stand or fall together with claim 3.
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim 3 depends from and further limits claim 1 by requiring that the
particle size distribution is measured as a function of time. Specifically, claim 3
requires that “the change in the distribution of aggregate size as a function of
time is utilized to determine the amount of said analyte in said sample.”
The examiner relies on the combination of Kosako, ‘221 and ‘978 as set
forth above. Answer, page 5. The examiner recognizes, however, that the
combination of Kosako, ‘221 and ‘978 does not teach measuring the particle size
distribution as a function of time. Id. The examiner relies on Chandler to make
up for this deficiency.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 6), Chandler “teaches
multiplexed analysis of clinical specimens via flow cytometry beads
measurements involving real time analysis (light scatter evaluations).” In this
regard, the examiner finds (id.), “Chandler teaches that time measurement can
be evaluated as external time and internal time.” In addition, the examiner finds
(id.), Chandler teaches that “[a]ssay’s involving antibody-antigen binding often
includes enzymes. These enzymes can inhibit (particle aggregation inhibitors) or
regulate (particle aggregation promoters) the binding event.”
Based on this evidence, the examiner reasons (id.), it would have been
prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013