Appeal 2005-2193
Application 09/385,405
2. The process of Schmidt treats “first components” as claimed
(Decision 4).
3. The two-step filtration process including use of a tangential flow filter
described in the Schmidt Declaration is not commensurate-in-scope
with the subject matter sought to be patented by claim 71 (Decision
7).
As explained below, Appellant has not persuaded us of any reversible
error in our Decision.
Appellant focuses on claim 71, the claim we selected to represent the
issues on appeal for the rejections over Schmidt. As pointed out by
Appellant, claim 71 is directed to a method of treating a waste material
containing gelatin (Request 3). The process involves phase separation
wherein some components are present in one layer and other components
tend to migrate to the other layer. The layer containing gelatin and a “first
component” is treated to remove the “first component.” According to the
Specification, the layer containing gelatin is an aqueous layer. Claim 71
designates this layer the “solvent based layer.” According to claim 71, the
“first component” is one “which can not effectively be separated from the
first liquid into a non-solvent based layer.”
The true issue underlying Appellant’s first two points of contention
listed above is one of claim interpretation: Does “first component” as
claimed encompass the trace contaminants Schmidt discloses as present in
the aqueous layer?
The Decision states that “[a]ny component that remains in the lower
aqueous layer (solvent layer) after separation facilitated by sight glass is a
‘first component’ as claimed.” (Decision 5). In other words, the trace
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007