Appeal No. 1999-1271
Application No. 08/467,883
As discussed above, Kuo’s method involves lysing H. influenzae cells and
mixing the cell lysate with 2% hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide. The
soluble cell components were then discarded and the P2-containing precipitate
was resuspended in CaCl2 solution. Ethanol (20%) was added, and the
precipitated cellular components were discarded. The soluble P2 was then
precipitated with 80% ethanol and further purified. See column 12-45.
Presumably, under the examiner’s rationale, the skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to take the precipitate from Kuo’s 20% ethanol precipitation and
recover P1 protein from that, using the procedure disclosed by Loeb. We do not
find any suggestion to do so in the cited references. Loeb’s P1 purification
protocol begins with H. influenzae cells, then separates the outer membranes
from the cells by treatment with Tris. The isolated membranes are then treated
with 0.25 M NaCl and a nonionic detergent to solubilize P1 protein from the
membranes, and the P1 protein is further purified. Nowhere does Loeb suggest
that his procedure would benefit from, or even be compatible with, the initial
steps in Kuo’s P2 purification (specifically, cell lysis, addition of
hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide, precipitation, resuspension in CaCl2, and
20% ethanol precipitation).
In short, the only suggestion we find in the record to carry out the steps of
the claimed process, in the order recited, comes from Appellants’ specification.
“Combining prior art references without evidence of such a suggestion, teaching,
or motivation simply takes the inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007