Appeal No. 95-2484
Application 07/948,470
Margulis et al. (Margulis), “DIALOG file 155 abstract, Accession No. 86019544,
“Clinical effectiveness of the method of extracorporeal heparin precipitation of plasma
proteins (selective plasmapheresis) in patients with immune complex pathology”2
Homma et al. (Homma), “Comparison of Selectivity of LDL Removal by Double Filtration
and Dextran-Sulfate Cellulose Column Plasmapheresis,” Atherosclerosis,
Vol. 60, pp. 23-27 (1986)
BIO-RAD Price List L, “Chromatography Electrophoresis Immunochemistry Molecular
Biology HPLC,” pp. 49-67 (Jan. 1986)
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 43 through 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking
patentable utility.
II. Claims 43 through 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on a specification which fails to provide an adequate written description or
an enabling disclosure of the invention.
III. Claims 43 through 45, 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rubinow in view of Homma.
IV. Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Rubinow and Homma, in further view of the Bio-Rad catalog.
We have given careful consideration to the record before us which includes, inter
alia, the appellants’ main brief (Paper No. 37) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 41), the
2The examiner has relied on an abstract from an electronic database. However,
the date the abstract was publically available on line is not of record in
the file.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007