Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
described in the Rule 132 declaration executed by Mr. Ichida and
Mr. Ikeda on September 1, 1995. In any event, we find that these
particles are not limited to any particular shapes and are known
to include those in the form of beads. Moreover, it is well
known to use sorbents, including cellulose sorbents, in the form
of beads in chromatography separation. See, e.g., Determann,
column 2, lines 1-5 and Schaeffer, column 2, lines 15-20.
Given these teachings, we concur with the examiner that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ
cellulose triphenyl carbamate particles, including those in the
form of beads, in a chromatographic column, with a reasonable
expectation of successfully using them in chromatography
separation. Hence, we conclude that the examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the subject matter of
claims 22 and 25. In reaching this conclusion, we also note that
the appellants “do not dispute that Mikes combined with Hagel
would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that cellulose
trisphenylcarbamate could be used as a separating agent in a
chromatographic column.” See the Brief, page 10.
However, we determine that claims 21, 23, 44 and 46 are on
different footing. Although these claims require that cellulose
triphenyl carbamate be supported on a carrier, the examiner does
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007