Appeal No. 1997-3811 Page 12
Application No. 08/357,845
a mobile phase when employing semi-permeable membranes for
separation. See column 11, line 16 through column 12, line 9
of Pirkle ‘440 and column 19, lines 16-42 of Pirkle ‘293.
However, the examiner has not established, on this record, why
the teachings of the Pirkle patents with respect to using a
chiral selector as part of a mobile phase in the semi-
permeable membrane embodiment described therein would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to add a chiral selector to
the first liquid phase (stationary phase) charged to a
countercurrent centrifuge column as herein claimed.
Additionally, the examiner has not shown how any particular
“optimization” of countercurrent chromatgraphy separation
and/or the applied Cahnmann reference makes up for the above-
noted deficiency. Nor has the examiner demonstrated how the
published article by Pirkle and additional alleged admitted
prior art as further applied in a separate rejection against
claim 5 cure the above-noted deficiency of the combined prior
art teachings.
The examiner has simply not made the case as to why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to choose the
herein claimed particular process steps from the combined
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007