Appeal No. 1999-1425
Application No. 08/393,321
Claims 1 - 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies on Sambrook and Sauer.
Claims 10 - 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies on Sambrook, Johnson, and Agerkvist.
We reverse for reasons set forth herein.
Discussion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant’s specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the Examiner's Answer of December
9, 1997 (Paper No. 13) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed August 23, 1997 (Paper No. 12), for the appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
Background
Applicant describes the claimed invention at pages 6 and 7 of the Specification as
being directed to a mechanical method for disrupting plasmid-containing bacterial cells
and, thus, releasing the intact plasmid DNA which can then be isolated. One such method
comprises the steps of first passing a liquid suspension of plasmid-containing bacterial
cells, between one and three times, through an impinging-jet homogenizer with a single
interaction chamber at operating pressure of about 750 to 4000 psi, whereby the bacterial
cells are disrupted and the intact plasmid DNA is released. Appellant describes a second
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007