Appeal No. 95-2970
Application No. 07/995,106
order to optimize the ultrafiltration profile, thus
arriving at substantially the molecular weight range
recited in the instant claims. [Examiner's Answer,
page 4, first full paragraph].
Simply stated, the foregoing is an example of ipse dixit
reasoning. On this record, it is the appellants'
specification, not Klein's disclosure, which provides the
guidelines and direction leading to a polypeptide mixture
having the specific molecular weight characteristics recited
in independent claim 10. The examiner's conclusion of
obviousness is not supported by an adequate factual
foundation, and cannot stand. This rejection is reversed.
Claims 21 through 27 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 10 and, therefore, include the limitations pertaining to
molecular weight recited therein. Again, the examiner has not
established that the Klein reference is sufficient to support
a conclusion of obviousness of claims containing those
limitations. Nor does the Steudle reference cure that
deficiency in Klein. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 21
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Klein and Steudle is reversed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007