Appeal No. 95-4493
Application 07/756,646
42. Appellants and Carter do use the same reverse-phase column
purification (compare column 8, lines 43-49, with the
specification, the paragraph bridging pages 11-12). However,
appellants then proceed with further purification using
chromatographic techniques (specification, page 12, line 6 to
page 13, line 17).
The examiner concludes that “inherency is a certainty”
because both the prior art and the instant process use the
identical microorganism strain and “subject it [to] substantially
identical fermentation procedures” (examiner’s response to reply
brief, page 3). However, it is clear from the above comparison
of the processes of Carter and appellants that the fermentation
procedures are not “substantially identical” and it has not been
shown by the examiner that it is inevitable that the same
products would be produced by each process. Therefore, the
examiner has not shown that the compound of appealed claim 1 is
inherently produced by the prior art process.
Rejection for anticipation requires, as noted above for
section 103 rejections, that a reference must describe the
applicants’ claimed invention sufficiently to have placed a
person of ordinary skill in the art in possession of it, i.e.,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007