Appeal No. 95-4448
Application 08/070,434
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa in view
of Hsu and Mikes.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and by the examiner. In doing so, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5
over Miwa and Hsu for obviousness and reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 4 for obviousness over
Miwa, Hsu and Mikes.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5
The examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa
in view of Hsu. We will affirm this rejection. As pointed out by the examiner, Miwa discloses serum
albumin as a separating agent which is bonded to a silica gel or agarose support (col. 1, lines 57-60). Hsu
discloses that conalbumin and bovine serum albumin are known chiral resolving agents. From these
teachings we conclude that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute
conalbumin for bovine serum albumin with the reasonable expectation that the conalbumin on a silca gel or
agarose support would be an optical isomer separating agent as claimed.
The thrust of appellants’ arguments is that the combination of Miwa and Hsu is improper because
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007