Appeal No. 95-4448
Application 08/070,434
conalbumin, let alone a chemically modified conalbumin which functions as a chiral resolving agent.
Moreover, the examiner has not explained why a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of the prior art to chemically modify conalbumin.
In addition, the examiner is relying on the prior art teachings of Miwa to equate conalbumin and bovine
serum albumin as equivalent chiral resolving agents on silica gel or agarose carriers. Since neither of these
carriers have been shown by the examiner to have free amido groups, it would appear that it would
impossible for glutaraldehyde to function as a cross-linking agent as taught by Mikes to bond a chemically
modified conalbumin to the carriers as suggested by the examiner. For these reasons, the examiner’s
rejection is reversed.
Other Issues
In the event of further prosecution of this application, the examiner should consider the following
issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: whether the conalbumin as defined in claim 3 has
antecedent support in claim 1 and whether the chemically modified conalbumin has been properly defined
in claim 4.
1. On pages 2 and 3 of the specification and in claim 5, appellants define the optical isomer
separating agent as being “conalbumin or chemically modified conalbumin.” On page 4 of the specification,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007