Appeal 2007-1070
Application 09/467,901
We concur with the Examiner’s finding that Arnold teaches that two-
step antibody separation methods are conventional in the art. Arnold states
that the label can be added in either a second step or “simultaneous” with the
first incubation step with antibody and antigen (Arnold, col. 1, l. 60; FF 16),
indicating the interchangeability of a one-step method (e.g., Johansen) with a
two-step method (e.g., Arnold). Appellant’s arguments address the
suitability of Arnold’s particular assay method when combined with
Johansen and Frank, not the use of the two-step assay format described in
Arnold’s background. Consequently, we do not find Appellant to have
rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
The rejection of claim 6 is affirmed. Claims 17-20 fall with claim 6
because different arguments for their patentability were not provided.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
lbg
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20001-4413
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: September 9, 2013