Appeal No. 1999-2141
Application No. 08/657,164
fractionating by choosing a buffer within the pH of 7 to be within the skill of the art. Answer,
page 6.
In addition to failing to provide evidence of record describing a step of “diluting the
taipan snake venom with phophate buffer saline”, the examiner fails to provide evidence of
the use of 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol)-HCl in ion exchange
chromatography to prepare $-taipoxin, as claimed.1
In addition to the cited references, the examiner appears to rely on a review article
by Hearn as representative of the state of the art regarding HPLC and reverse phase
HPLC, suggesting that choosing a buffer or gradient for HPLC cannot be said to be a
basis for patentability. Answer pages 7-8. In so much as Hearn is not relied on as a
basis for the present rejection, it cannot and does not cure the deficiencies of the cited
references.
It appears that the primary reason, suggestion or motivation for combining the cited
references as suggested by the examiner comes from appellant’s disclosure. The
examiner points to no scientific or technical reasoning within the references themselves
which would suggest modification of the venom purification method of Haast to obtain the
appellant’s specific claimed method of preparation of beta taipoxin.
1Note the failure to cite Scopes in the statement of rejection.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007