Appeal 2007-0393
Reexamination Control 90/006,786
Patent 6,497,843
1 Analysis
2 The differences between the subject matter of Patentee’s Claim 1 and
3 the subject matter of Claims 4 and 6 of the 620 patent are the configuration
4 of the wicking material and the location of the contact of the wicking
5 material and assay strip. In Claims 4 and 6 the wicking material must loop
6 over the top of the impermeable backing and overlap the assay strip. Claim
7 1 requires only that the wicking material contact the assay strip and that the
8 urine “solely wick up” the wicking material. Thus, in Claim 1 the wicking
9 material does not loop over the top of the backing, but the assay strip loops
10 over the backing to contact the wicking material
11 One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a full
12 understanding of the principles governing the operation of the process
13 described in Claims 4 and 6 of the 620 patent. In particular that person
14 would have understood that the assay assembly operates by utilizing
15 capillary action to bring the urine into contact with the assay strip. The
16 person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the assay assembly
17 would operate as intended as long as the urine wicked into contact with the
18 assay strip. The person of ordinary skill would have further expected that it
19 would make no or little difference in the operation of the assay assembly
20 whether the wicking material extended over the top of the backing to come
21 into contact with the assay strip or the assay strip extended over the top of
22 the backing to contact a wicking material that “solely wicked up.” The
23 substitution of one alternative for another would have been obvious. The
24 method of urinalysis using an assay assembly with a wicking material that
25 “solely wicked up” would have been obvious from the method and assay
26 assembly described by Claims 4 and 6 of the 620 patent.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013