Ex Parte Winther et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2013

10999102 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/999,102 11/30/2004 Lars Winther 09138.0022-00 4957
22852 7590 09/18/2013
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
FOSTER, CHRISTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LARS WINTHER, ANTHONY LIONEL KNOLL,
KELLYANN WECKWORTH, and UFFE LOVBORG
________________

Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102
Technology Center 1600
________________

Before ERIC GRIMES, JOHN G. NEW, and SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 12-25, 27-39, 41-46, 127, and
128. Specifically, claims 1-4, 8, 12-19, 22, 24-25, 27-37, 39, 41-46, and
127 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Jaroslav Mokrý, Versatility of
Immunohistochemical Reactions: Comprehensive Survey of Detection
Systems, 39 ACTA MEDICA 129 (1996) (“Mokrý”) and Ed Harlow and
David Lane, ANTIBODIES A LABORATORY MANUAL, (Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory, 1988) (“Harlow”).
Claims 20-21 and 23 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mokrý, Harlow, and
Faris et al. (US 7,115,727 B2, October 3, 2006) (“Faris”).
Claims 37-38 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mokrý, Harlow, and
Ward et al. (US 4,711,955, December 8, 1987) (“Ward”).
Claim 128 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Mokrý, Harlow, and Lihme et al.
(WO 00/07019, February 10, 2000) (“Lihme”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods and compositions for
detecting a biological marker in a sample. In certain embodiments the
biological markers are detected immunologically. Abstract.
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

3
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants argue that the Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 8, 12-25, 27-
39, 41-46, 127, and 128 for the same substantial reasons. App. Br. 16, 26.
We therefore select independent claim 1 as representative of these claims.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of detecting a biological marker in a sample
comprising:

a. contacting the sample with at least one first binding
agent that specifically binds to the biological marker in
the sample such that the at least one first binding agent
binds to the sample and forms a first complex;

b. contacting the first complex of a) with at least one
second binding agent that specifically binds to the at least
one first binding agent such that a second complex is
formed, wherein the at least one second binding agent is
linked to at least one first polymer;

c. contacting the second complex of b) with at least one
third binding agent that specifically binds to the at least
one second binding agent, wherein the at least one third
binding agent is linked to at least one second polymer;
wherein at least one detectable agent is linked to at least
one of

i. the at least one third binding agent;

ii. the at least one second polymer; or

iii. both the at least one third binding agent and the
at least one second polymer;

wherein the at least one third binding agent binds to the
second complex of b) and forms a third complex; and

Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

4
d. detecting the at least one detectable agent of the third
complex of c), thereby detecting the biological marker in
the sample.

App. Br. 19.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Mokrý and Harlow support a prima facie case of
obviousness because:
Mokrý and Harlow, in view of the art as a whole, (1) did not
provide sufficient guidance to select EnVision™ as a starting
point for further modification; (2) did not motivate a person of
ordinary skill in the art to add a third step and a second
polymer-conjugated layer to the EnVision™ system; and (3)
provided no reason to expect that such a three-step, two
polymer layer system would show comparable or superior
staining to EnVision™.

App. Br. 25-26. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so
erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that, of the fifteen general methods of detecting a
biological marker in a sample taught by Mokrý, the final two methods
taught, CSA and label anti-label, are the most sensitive and versatile for
detecting minute quantities of a marker in a sample. App. Br. 19 (citing
Mokrý, 137-139). Appellants’ declarant, Dr. Jesper Lohse (submitted Aug.
17, 2009), opined that, “based on the teachings of Mokrý and the general
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

5
knowledge in the art at the time, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
undoubtedly have chosen to use the CSA or label anti-label signal
amplification systems rather than to develop a new method for signal
amplification.” App. Br. 19 (quoting Lohse Decl., ¶ 9).
Appellants allege that the Examiner impermissibly employed
hindsight in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to choose the EnVision™ (“EnVision”) method from
among the fifteen methods taught by Mokrý as a starting point for further
experimentation. App. Br. 19. Appellants argue that the Examiner
compounded this error by finding that there was motivation to modify the
two-step EnVision method by adding a third step and a further layer of
polymer-conjugated binding agents. App. Br. 20. Appellants argue that the
Examiner based this finding on the fact that three-step methods using
simpler molecular components than used in Mokrý were known in the art.
App. Br. 20 (citing Final Rej. 6-8).
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to consider that polymer-
conjugated systems such as EnVision are more structurally complex than
the traditional three-step indirect detection methods known in the art using
labeled antibodies or other smaller molecules. Appellants contend that
Mokrý teaches that reducing the number of steps of a procedure while
retaining sensitivity is particularly valuable. App. Br. 22. Appellants argue
that Mokrý also teaches that further increases in the molecular complexity
or number of steps in a detection system might actually reduce the
sensitivity of the detection rather than improve it and, consequently, teaches
away from Appellants’ claimed 3-layer, 2 polymer method. App. Br. 21
(citing Mokrý, 136-137).
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

6
Appellants point to prior art reference Shan-Rong Shi et al.,
Sensitivity and Detection Efficiency of a Novel Two-Step Detection System
(Power Vision) for Immunohistochemistry, 7(3) APPLIED
IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR MORPHOLOGY, 201 (1999) (“Shi”)
for support of their argument that there was a high demand in the art for
“more sensitive, more reliable, and simpler methodologies” for detecting
biological markers. App. Br. 22 (citing Shi, 202). Appellants argue that
Shi teaches that “any reduction in the number of steps has always been
accompanied by reduced sensitivity” whereas “[n]ew approaches … have
been accompanied by even more complicated protocols and by high or
unacceptable nonspecific staining.” Id. According to Appellants, “Shi, like
Mokrý, emphasizes a motivation in the art to make simpler detection
methods, not more complicated ones, as well as the knowledge in the art
that designing more complicated protocols with more molecular layers was
frequently counterproductive.” Id. Appellants also contend that Shi notes
that “the high molecular weight of the dextran carrier used for the
conjugation of enzymes to linker antibodies” in the EnVision system
“appears to create spatial hindrance … compromising the penetrative ability
of the detection reagent. Consequently, sensitivities of the polymer-
enhanced system vary greatly for different antibodies or antigens.” App.
Br. 23 (citing Shi, 202).
Appellants argue that, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have used EnVision as a starting point for developing new detection
methods, Mokrý and Shi, taken together, show that such a person would not
have modified EnVision the way the instant inventors did. App. Br. 23-24.
Appellants argue that claim 1 was developed contrary to the direction
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

7
taught by both Mokrý and Shi by increasing, rather than reducing, the
number of procedural steps and adding a further polymer-conjugated layer,
risking reduced sensitivity due to nonspecific staining and higher
background. App. Br. 23-24.
Appellants argue that Shi’s comment that more complicated
protocols have been accompanied by high or unacceptable nonspecific
staining underscores that the outcome of adding a further polymer-
conjugated layer to EnVision would also not have been predictable. App.
Br. 24. Appellants point to the Lohse Declaration, in which Dr. Lohse
opined that an artisan of ordinary skill “would have expected that the
increased molecular weight from the multiple polymer-conjugated layers
would increase non-specific binding and potentially cause a signal-to-noise
problem.” App. Br. 24 (quoting Lohse Decl., ¶ 11). Appellants also argue
that Dr. Lohse “comments that the increased molecular weight and size of
the polymer-conjugated components may result in non-specific binding and
overcrowding, which may decrease sensitivity rather than increase it.”
App. Br. 24 (citing Lohse Decl., ¶ 12). According to Appellants, Dr. Lohse
notes that the two polymer layers could interfere with each other, creating a
zipper effect, which can also reduce the sensitivity of the system. App. Br.
24 (citing Lohse Decl., ¶¶ 13-14, Fig. 1). Thus, argue Appellants, the
alleged superior performance of the inventors’ approach would not have
been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. App. Br. 24.
The Examiner responds that the issue is not whether the claimed
combination is the only possible variation of Mokrý but rather, whether it is
an obvious variation. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that a variation may be
obvious even if it is not the only possible variation. Id. The Examiner finds
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

8
that there is nothing in Mokrý’s teaching of other methods and their
advantages that would foreclose the possibility of further improvements
upon the EnVision method. Id.
Furthermore, the Examiner relates that she was unable to find any
teaching in Mokrý that suggested that the CSA and label anti-label, are the
most sensitive and versatile for detecting minute quantities of a marker in a
sample. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that, whereas advantages of these
methods are noted, this is also true of each method discussed by Mokrý
(including the EnVision method). Id. The Examiner finds that Mokrý
makes similar positive statements about the EnVision system, especially
with respect to the ability of polymers to enhance signals. Id. (citing
Mokrý, Section 2.6, Fig. 10). The Examiner finds that Mokrý suggests that
multi-step procedures may have advantages over simpler detection
methods, teaching that the use of an additional layer provides for signal
enhancement in the two-step EnVision technique, when compared with the
one-step EPOS procedure. Ans. 17 (citing Fig. 10).
The Examiner finds that, contrary to Appellants’ assertions, Mokrý
does not broadly teach away from the addition of further steps or layers.
Ans. 16. The Examiner finds that Mokrý teaches the advantages of the two-
step EnVision method, stating that, in the EnVision system, the signal is
enhanced through the use of a polymer that carries marker molecules and
anti-Ig antibodies. Id. (citing Fig. 10). Therefore, the Examiner finds,
“rather than broadly teaching away from the addition of further steps or
layers, the Mokrý reference explains how the use of an additional layer
provides for signal enhancement.” Ans. 16.
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

9
With respect to the teachings of Shi, the Examiner finds that there is
insufficient evidence of record to conclude that those of ordinary skill in the
contemporary art would always choose simpler, easier detection methods.
Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that the two-step system taught by Shi, as
opposed to a simpler one-step system, indicates that simplicity was not
viewed by ordinary artisans as the sole, overriding goal, but rather, that
sensitivity was also prized. Id.
The Examiner finds, therefore, that especially in situations where
signal enhancement takes priority over time considerations, the ordinary
artisan would have found it obvious to apply techniques known to enhance
signal, such as (1) the use of a third antibody layer and (2) the use of
polymer-conjugated antibodies as means of enhancing signal, both
techniques taught by Mokrý. Ans. 18. The Examiner finds that, because
the use of an additional layer was specifically identified in the prior art to
be advantageous for detection using labeled antibodies, Appellants’ claim 1
is an obvious, predictable variation. Id.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants’ interpretation of Shi,
finding that Shi’s teaching that: “[n]ew approaches, such as catalyzed
reporter deposition or tyramine signal amplification, immunopolymerase
chain reaction (PCR), and end-product amplifications, which give improved
detection sensitivity, have been accompanied by even more complicated
protocols and by high or unacceptable nonspecific staining” demonstrates
that more complicated protocols yield “improved detection sensitivity.”
Ans. 18 (quoting Shi, 202) (references omitted). The Examiner finds that,
contrary to Appellants’ argument that nonspecific staining would mean
reduced sensitivity, there is insufficient evidence presented to adopt that
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

10
reasoning, which is at odds with the explicit statement by Shi that detection
sensitivity is improved. Ans. 18.
The Examiner finds that, with respect to the teachings of Shi relating
to EnVision, the context of Shi should be considered. Ans. 19. The
Examiner finds that Shi presents a new detection system and as such, it is
not surprising that the benefits of the new system are favorably compared to
older methodologies. Id. The Examiner finds that every assay has
advantages and disadvantages and, the Examiner finds, it is therefore not
surprising that Appellants have found a single instance in which other
researchers note drawbacks of the EnVision system. Id.
The Examiner finds further that Shi speculates that the high
molecular weight of the dextran carrier may compromise the penetrative
ability of the detection reagent and mention nuclear antigens in this context.
Ans. 18. However, finds the Examiner, such statements regarding the
ability of a primary antibody conjugate to penetrate into tissue or
subcellular compartments cannot be clearly extrapolated to a second
polymer layer. Ans. 18-19. In particular, finds the Examiner, since the
second polymer would not need to “penetrate” into tissue where the antigen
is located but would be binding to the already bound first polymer (in three
dimensional space), the comments by Shi do not clearly lead to the
conclusions drawn by Appellants. Ans. 19-20. The Examiner therefore
finds insufficient evidence to support the position that Mokrý and Shi
broadly teach reducing the number of procedural steps. Ans. 20.
The Examiner finds that Mokrý teaches that the addition of another
conjugated antibody to create a third layer (in which the additional tertiary
antibody binds to the secondary antibody) brings further amplification of
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

11
the signal as compared to a two-step indirect method having only two
layers. Ans. 21 (citing Mokrý, 133, Fig. 4; see also Mokrý, 130, 133,
sections 2 and 2.1). The Examiner finds that, in comparing the polymer-
based EPOS and EnVision methods, Mokrý makes clear that coupling of
antibodies to a polymer enhances the signal. Ans. 21 (citing Mokrý, Fig.
10). Moreover, finds the Examiner, Harlow provides additional evidence
that adding a third layer was a known strategy for producing stronger
signals and thereby improving sensitivity. Ans. 21 (citing Harlow, 344).
The Examiner also finds that Kameda (EP 0 269 451, published Jun.
1, 1988) teaches inclusion of a dextran polymer or other “bulking agent”
that allows for attachment of multiple labels on a single reagent. Ans. 21
(citing Kameda 7, ll. 5-7). The Examiner finds that Kameda’s teachings in
this respect help avoid overcrowding of the enzyme and increased
effectiveness in the specific reaction binding capability and, consequently,
increased sensitivity. Ans. 21 (citing Kameda 7, ll. 49-54).
With respect to the Lohse Declaration, the Examiner finds that Figure
1 of the Lohse Declaration does not represent experimental data but rather
the Declarant’s view of how the ordinary artisan would perceive the
proposed combination, and why a negative result would be expected. Ans.
23. The Examiner finds, however, there is insufficient extrinsic evidence
proffered to substantiate that Figure 1 would represent the viewpoint of the
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. The
Examiner particularly finds that the teachings of Mokrý and Harlow both
indicate that an additional layer would have been expected to enhance,
rather than reduce, the signal. Id. The Examiner finds that Harlow teaches
that indirect detection methods are more sensitive but are also more prone
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

12
to background problems, Harlow concludes that “for the majority of
applications the indirect methods are the most useful.” Ans. 24 (citing
Harlow 321).
Therefore, finds the Examiner even if the addition of a third layer
may have been expected to provide additional opportunities for non-specific
binding and add to the overall background, one of ordinary skill in the art
still would nonetheless have reasonably expected the advantage of signal
amplification; and in many cases, the advantage of obtaining maximal
signal might outweigh the advantages of a shortened protocol or of
minimizing background. Ans. 24.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ reasoning that the Examiner’s
rejection is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. As an initial
matter, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Mokrý teaches
away from the claimed invention. A reference teaches away when “a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). With respect to EnVision,
Mokrý explicitly teaches:
A two-step method, called EnVision, uses the same
water soluble polymeric conjugates coupled to antibody that
can recognize mouse or rabbit IgGs. These conjugates are
applied in the second layer of the immunohistochemical
procedure (Fig. 10). The antigen is recognized by the specific
unconjugated antibody in the first layer. This indirect method
provides a further increase in sensitivity as compared to the
LAB [Labeled Avidin-Biotin] method.

Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

13
Mokrý, p. 137. We find no teaching in Mokrý that would discourage or
divert an artisan of ordinary skill from selecting EnVision from one of the
fifteen methods taught by Mokrý as a starting place from which to add a
third polymer layer. Moreover, given the relatively limited array of
techniques taught by Mokrý, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
that Mokrý does not provide sufficient guidance for an artisan to select
EnVision as a starting point. As related supra, Mokrý teaches that the
EnVision method, which employs an indirect, polymer-based approach
“provides a further increase in sensitivity as compared to the LAB
method.” Id. We find that this would sufficiently motivate an artisan of
ordinary skill to select EnVision as a starting point to experiment with
polymer-based indirect methods.
Nevertheless, we find that there are specific negative teachings and
suggestions in the prior art references and the Lohse Declaration to
overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case that claim 1 is obvious.
For example, Mokrý teaches, with respect to the use of additional
immunohistochemical layers that: “[f]requently the amplification steps can
be several times repeated; the only limitation is the enhancement of
background staining since any signal amplification technique will amplify
background along with the signal.” Mokrý, 137. Mokrý thus teaches that
addition of successive layers increases the amount of nonspecific binding.
Shi likewise teaches that:
Simplification of conventional multistep detection systems
producing shorter protocols without compromising detection
sensitivity has long been desirable, but is technically
challenging…. New approaches, such as catalyzed reporter
deposition or tyramine signal amplification,
immunopolymerase chain reaction (PCR), and end-product
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

14
amplifications, which give improved detection sensitivity, have
been accompanied by even more complicated protocols and by
high or unacceptable nonspecific staining.

Shi, 202 (citations omitted). Shi further teaches that:
In 1995, a polymer-enhanced two-step IHC
[immunohistochemical] detection system (EnVision) was
reported and evaluated subsequently, providing a potential
solution to the need for simplification. However, the high
molecular weight of the dextran carrier used for the
conjugation of enzymes to linker antibodies appears to create
spatial hindrance, thus compromising the penetrative ability of
the detection reagent. Consequently, sensitivities of the
polymer-enhanced system vary greatly for different antibodies
and antigens.

Id. (citations omitted).

Shi also teaches that there is a high demand for simple, sensitive, and
reliable immunohistochemical protocols:
The demand for more sensitive, more reliable, and
simpler methodologies for [immunohistochemistry] has never
been higher, due to the fact that [immunohistochemistry] is
now a critical and widely used technique in basic and clinical
research, as well as in diagnostic surgical pathology and
cytology. Simplification of conventional multistep detection
systems, producing shorter protocols without compromising
detection sensitivity, has long been desirable, but is technically
challenging.

Id.
We find, then, that Shi teaches that (1) simplification of
immunohistochemical protocols is generally highly desirable; (2) that
complex, multistep protocols may yield greater sensitivity, but also tend to
produce higher levels of nonspecific staining; and (3) that evaluation of
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

15
EnVision yielded variable sensitivity, possibly due to steric hindrance
caused by the large molecular weight of the second-layer polymer complex.
Nor are we persuaded by the Examiner’s argument that the context in
which Shi cites EnVision should cause us to give less weight to Shi’s
teachings. See Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner that Shi was teaching
EnVision’s strengths and weaknesses in light of its own newly-developed
method. Id. But Shi cites directly to other studies1 as the source of its
teachings regarding EnVision and there is no evidence before us that the
other references were presented in a context similar to that of Shi.
We also give weight to the opinion testimony of Dr. Lohse,
Appellants’ witness. Dr. Lohse opined that:
even if one skilled in the art at the time would have been
motivated to develop a new method for producing further signal
amplification, he would not have predicted that incorporating
another conjugated tertiary antibody into the EnVision™
technique would necessarily be successful. Instead, if such a
person would have been able to predict the outcome of such an
experiment, he would have expected that the increased
molecular weight from the multiple polymer-conjugated layers
would increase non-specific binding and potentially cause a

1 Shi cites to the following sources as the basis of its critique of EnVision:
A. Heras, C.M. Roach, and M.E. Key, Enhanced polymer detection system
for immunohistochemistry, 8 MOD. PATHOL. 165A (1995); M. Vyberg, S.
Nielsen, Dextran polymer conjugate two-step visualization system for
immunohistochemistry, 6 APPL. IMMUNOHISTOCHEM. 3 (1998); and E.
Sabattini, K. Bisgaard, S. Ascani et al., The EnVisionTM system: a new
immunohistochemical method for diagnostics and research. Critical
comparison with the APAAP, ChemMateTM, CSA, LABC, and SABC
techniques, 51 J. CLIN. PATHOL. 506 (1998). The Examiner does not
address the disclosures of these references. See Shi, 202, 208.

Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

16
signal-to-noise problem. For example, Mokrý teaches that a
basic problem with multi-layer polymer-based visualization
systems is that each additional layer adds to the background,
since each additional middle layer polymer will always bind at
least some unspecific binding sites, and this unspecific binding
will be amplified by the top polymer conjugated layer.

Lohse Decl., ¶ 11. Moreover Dr. Lohse further opined that: “[s]ince
addition of a second large molecular weight polymer-conjugate layer to the
prior art single polymer systems would be expected to substantially increase
non-specific binding, those skilled in the art at the relevant time would not
have expected success from practicing the method of the [instant]
application.” Id.
Dr. Lohse further opined that: “one of ordinary skill would have
expected that the increased molecular weight from adding another polymer-
conjugated layer to the EnVision™ system might also negatively impact
staining efficiency.” Lohse Decl., ¶ 12. Dr. Lohse also opined that if the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to predict the outcome of
adding a second polymer conjugate to the single-polymer detection systems
disclosed in the prior art, he would have expected that the additional layer
might cause problems with signal amplification. Lohse Decl., ¶ 13.
In summary, we find the weight of the evidence suggests that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable
expectation of success in adding a third layer, with a second layer of
polymer, to the EnVision protocol.
Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the
prior art includes separate references covering each separate
limitation in a claim under examination. Rather, obviousness
requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill
Appeal 2012-006340
Application 10/999,102

17
at the time of the invention would have selected and combined
those prior art elements ….

Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). We find
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have obviously elected to
add a third polymeric layer to the EnVision method because the prior art of
record teaches that adding additional layers to the immmunohistochemical
reaction protocol would likely increase non-specific binding and because
sensitivity of the assay, though possibly increasing, might also
unpredictably decrease due to steric hindrance. We consequently reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The other independent claims on
appeal (claims 42-44 and 46) also require two polymer layers. We
therefore reverse the rejection of these claims as well, and the rejection of
the dependent claims on appeal, for the reasons discussed above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 12-25, 27-39, 41-46, 127,
and 128 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc