Appeal No. 1997-0204
Application No. 08/400,786
have been obvious to include HEPES in the separation matrix of
the type described in Chu ‘485 or ‘843. See Answer, pages 5 2
and 9. The dispositive question is, therefore, whether one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to include
the claimed amount of HEPES in the separation matrix described
in Chu ‘485 or ‘843. We answer this question in the negative.
As argued by appellants, Wilk teaches the importance of
using polyvinyl and other materials in a separation matrix to
minimize the occurrence of substantial hemolysis. See, e.g.,
column 3, lines 36-43 and column 4, line 60 to column 5, line
28. According to Table 1, example 2, at column 9 of Wilk, the
use of a particular combination of these materials would
result in preventing the occurrence of any hemolysis. Wilk
mentions using HEPES in example 2 as one of the solvents
useful for dissolving an agglutinating agent used in the
separation matrix. See column 6, lines 8-18, together with
column 8, lines 48-51. However, as urged by appellants, Wilk
discloses that the solvents, including HEPES, are removed from
2The examiner does not rely on Hildenbrand and Cowsar for
the purpose of establishing obviousness with respect to
employing HEPES in the separation matrix of the claimed
device. See Answer, pages 6, 7, 10 and 11.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007