Ex parte TANIGUCHI et al. - Page 2


                 Appeal No. 1996-4119                                                                                  
                 Application No. 08/261,406                                                                            

                                               DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
                        This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s                     
                 final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-16, 18-20, and 22.  We note that no statement is              
                 made by the examiner regarding the status of claim 171.  In addition, the examiner                    
                 (Answer2, page 1) indicated that claim 7 would be allowable if written in                             
                 independent form.                                                                                     
                        Claims3 14 and 5 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are                      
                 reproduced below:                                                                                     
                        1. A process for purifying I1-proteinase inhibitor comprising:                                 
                                      providing an impure protein fraction comprising I1-proteinase                    
                               inhibitor;                                                                              
                                      suspending the impure protein fraction comprising I1-                            
                               proteinase inhibitor in water;                                                          
                                      precipitating the impure protein fraction comprising I1-                         
                               proteinase inhibitor with a precipitant comprising PEG and ZnCl2;                       
                                      collecting the supernatant from the PEG/ ZnCl2 precipitation,                    
                               wherein the supernatant comprises I1-proteinase inhibitor;                              
                                      precipitating I1-proteinase inhibitor from the PEG/ZnCl2                         
                               supernatant with ZnCl2 to thereby provide an I1-proteinase inhibitor                    
                               precipitate;                                                                            
                                      resuspending the I1-proteinase inhibitor precipitate in an                       
                               aqueous medium;                                                                         
                                      applying the resuspended I1-proteinase inhibitor to an anion-                    
                               exchange chromatography medium;                                                         

                                                                                                                       
                 1 Claim 17 was also not addressed in the Final Action (Paper No. 6, mailed April 4,                   
                 1995).  However, appellants view (Brief, page 2, part 3) claim 17 as included in the                  
                 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng                       
                 and Harris.  Accordingly, we will include claim 17 with the rejection under 35 U.S.C.                 
                 § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng and Harris.                                     
                 2 Paper No. 14, mailed April 16, 1996.                                                                
                 3 While the Answer makes no mention of it, appellants’ Appendix of Claims is                          
                 replete with typographical errors.  In this regard we refer to the original claims, or the            
                 claims as amended (Paper No. 5, received December 5, 1994 and Paper No. 8,                            
                 received September 25, 1995).                                                                         
                 4 Claim 1 is reproduced as it appears in Paper No. 8 (received September 25,                          
                 1995).                                                                                                

                                                          2                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007