Opinion ID: 477880
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Eight Articles Predicting Widespread Use of

Text: Monoclonal Antibodies 79 Before discussing the more pertinent references in this case--the Oi/Herzenberg and Frankel works--we cull the other prior art references relied on by the trial court. 80 First, the latest four of the eight articles that the court stated were of the utmost importance because they predicted that the breakthrough in production of monoclonal antibodies by Kohler and Milstein would lead to widespread use of monoclonal antibodies in immunoassays are neither 102(a)/103 nor 102(b)/103 prior art because they are dated between late 1979 and March 6, 1980, well after the date of conception and within one year of the filing date of the '110 patent. 81 The earliest four of the eight articles, on the other hand, although clearly prior art, discuss production of monoclonal antibodies--admittedly old after Kohler and Milstein showed how to produce them--but none discloses sandwich assays. At most, these articles are invitations to try monoclonal antibodies in immunoassays but do not suggest how that end might be accomplished. To the extent the district court relied upon these references to establish that it would have been obvious to try monoclonal antibodies of 10 8 liters/mole affinity in a sandwich immunoassay that detects the presence of or quantitates antigen, the court was in error. See Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1530, 220 USPQ 1021, 1026 (Fed.Cir.1984) (Obvious to try is improper consideration in adjudicating obviousness issue). 4 82