Appeal No. 1997-3811 Page 7
Application No. 08/357,845
See column 4, lines 45-52 of Pirkle ‘440 and column 7, lines
8-13 of Pirkle ‘293.
The examiner has not pointed out where in either applied
reference there is an explicit and particular description of
how any such countercurrent chromatographic device was to be
employed in any specific process for separating enantiomers,
let alone how such a device was to be used in a method
corresponding to appellants’ separation method. Rather, the
examiner takes the position that an ordinarily skilled artisan
“would employ the standard steps that define countercurrent
chromatography” (answer, pages 3 and 4) in either Pirkle ‘440
or Pirkle ‘293. In so doing, the examiner essentially urges
that the use of such a
countercurrent device in the enantiomeric separation processes
of either Pirkle patent would have necessarily resulted in the
method of representative appealed claim 1. According to the
examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4), this is so since appealed
“claim 1 merely recites the standard steps that a person of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007