Appeal No. 1997-3811 Page 13
Application No. 08/357,845
references’ teachings. Significantly, appellants’ contentions
regarding the many other alternative options that were
available for consideration by one of ordinary skill in the
art who may have attempted to separate enantiomers based on
the bare discloure of countercurrent chromatographic devices
in the applied Pirkle patents have not been fully addresssed
by the examiner in the answer. See the carryover paragraph,
pages 4 and 5 and pages 7-11 of the brief.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to any of the examiner’s § 103 rejections.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pirkle ‘440; to reject claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Pirkle ‘293; to reject claims
1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pirkle
‘440 or Pirkle ‘293, each in view of admitted prior art set
forth at pages 1-5 and the penultimate full paragraph of page
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007