Appeal 2007-1824
Application 10/639,718
therapeutic drugs. See abstract” (id.). Based on this evidence, the Examiner
finds that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of
Lahiri et al with a plurality of specific binding pairs, each
having a dissociation constant of 1 nM, as taught by Matray et
al in order to provide high affinity between the binding partner
and analyte in assays to detect a plurality of analytes in a
sample. The high affinity binding provides the advantage of a
more accurate detection method when detecting a plurality of
analytes, therefore providing the motivation to combine the
teachings of Lahiri et al and Matray et al.
(Answer 6-7.) In addition, the Examiner finds that “[i]t would also have
been obvious to modify the method of Lahiri et al with highly selective
ligands that eliminate any possibility of cross-reactivity between receptor
types, as taught by Jordan . . .” (Answer 7). On reflection, we find no error
in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
In response, Appellants assert that the combination of Lahiri, Matray,
and Jordan fails to teach step (b) of the claimed invention (Br. 6). Regarding
Lahiri, Appellants assert that the claimed invention “employs diverse
multiplexed GPCR microarrays that have GPCR membrane microspots that
do not have a common labeled ligand” (Br. 6). We disagree. GPCR
microarrays are not required in Appellants’ claim 1. Further, GPCRs are
only preferred proteins in Lahiri’s assays (Lahiri 2: ¶ 0021). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments relating to GPCR assays.
Appellants recognize that Matray “teaches a dissociation constant of 1
nM between specific binding pairs to provide high affinity between the
binding partner and analyte in assays for the detection of a plurality of
analytes in a sample” (Br. 8). However, Appellants assert that “there is a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013