Appeal 2007-1824
Application 10/639,718
d) detecting a level of binding between each labeled ligand in the
cocktail solution and its respective paired receptor.
For clarity, we note that steps (a) – (d) of Appellants’ claim 1 are directed to
a competitive binding assay.
Step (b) of claim 1 also requires that each labeled ligand in the
cocktail solution has (1) an affinity of from about 0.1 nM to about 20 nM
and (2) a specificity of at least 50% to bind with at least one corresponding
paired receptor in said array. In addition, claim 1 requires that each labeled
ligand has a cross activity of no more than 10% with receptors on said array
other than said at least one corresponding paired receptor.
According to claim 1, the detection of a change in the level of binding
between one of the labeled ligands and its respective paired receptor in the
presence of the target compound, as compared to a control level of binding,
indicates that the target compound is capable of modulating the interaction
between the labeled ligand and its respective paired receptor. Stated
differently, the detection of a change in the level of binding is based on the
comparison of a control, non-competitive assay, with the competitive
binding assay recited in elements (a) – (d) of claim 1.
Lahiri teaches an array with a plurality of microspots stably associated
with the surface of a substrate (Lahiri 3: ¶ 0047). Therefore, Lahiri teaches
element (a) of Appellants’ claimed invention. In addition, Lahiri teaches
that it is preferred that the protein included in one microspot differs from the
protein included on a second microspot of the same array (Lahiri 3-4:
¶ 0047). Lahiri teaches a competitive binding assay, in whichwherein the
array is exposed to labeled cognate ligands for the proteins on each
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013