Appeal 2007-1070
Application 09/467,901
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Johansen in view of Johnson and Frank (Answer 3). Claims
2-5, 8-14, 16, and 21-23 fall with claim 1 because separate arguments for
their patentability were not provided.
Obviousness of claims 6 and 17-20
Claims 6 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Johansen in view of Johnson and Frank, and further in view of Arnold
(Answer 7).
Claim 6 further requires adding a label after a first separation step
followed by a second separation step to separate non-complexed label from
the labeled complex (Br. 21; Answer 7).
The Examiner has provided evidence that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have reason to have combined Arnold with Johansen and
Frank for Arnold’s known advantages (Answer 7; FF 17).
Appellant argues that Arnold does not “cure” the “defect” in the
combination of Johansen and Frank (Br. 22). They also argue that Arnold’s
assay differs from the claimed assay in teaching immobilized capture
antibody (Br. 22).
[T]hus the interaction between the antibody and the ligand does
not take place freely in solution . . . [as required by claim 6].
There is no teaching in Arnold suggesting that such an assay
could be adapted to detect antibodies let alone using an
antibody receptor that is not immobilized to do it.
(Br. 22.)
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013