Appeal No. 1997-3811 Page 9
Application No. 08/357,845
not established with reasonable certitude that the reference
to countercurrent chromatographic devices in each of the
applied Pirkle patents coupled with the particular description
of enantiomer separation processes using other specified
separation equipment in those patents necessarily constitutes
a description of appellants’ process including the combination
of steps recited in appealed claim 1. In particular, the
examiner has not shown that either applied Pirkle patent
necessarily describes a separation method that includes the
addition of a chiral selector to a first liquid phase that is
charged to a countercurrent centrifuge column, the
introduction of a racemic mixture into the column and the
passage of a second liquid phase through the so charged column
to elute enantiomers therefrom. Hence, the examiner has
simply not carried the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation as to the appealed claims.
Consequently, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007