One of ordinary skill in the art would consider this as part of a standard
separation method for azeotropic mixtures; once the natural product is
collected, one of ordinary skill in the art would know of a number of
techniques to separate the product from the mixture, including azeotropic
mixtures.
Paper 40, p. 14, p. 18, p. 19.
F 106. Par6 has not identified any evidence relating to the use of azeotropic mixtures in microwave
extractions.
2. Analysis
Par6's preliminary motion alleges that all of Mengal's involved claims are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of either of two patents issued to Par6 -U.S. Patent
5,519,947 (947) and U.S. Patent 5,377,426 (426)-, in combination with the teachings of a
publication by Ganzler et al (Ganzler) and U.S. Patent 4,882,851 (Wennerstrum). Paper 40, p. 1.
We deny the motion.
Mengal's claims relate to methods and apparatus the for extracting products from biological
materials. Mengal's claims require placing the biological material into a container and subjecting
the materials to microwaves. The application ofmicrowaves is said to result in the hydro-distillation
of the desired product due to the evaporation of water present in the sample. The residual material
is then separated from the desired product. Mengal's claim 20 is representative:
20. A method of separating a natural product from a biological material,
the method comprising:
placing the biological material in an enclosure,
the biological material containing water,
the enclosure essentially free of liquid water other than the
water contained in the biological material, and
the enclosure free of organic solvent;
releasing at least part of the natural product from the biological
material
by applying microwave radiation to the biological material,
the microwave radiation effective to
evaporate at least part of the water contained
in the biological material to form
water vapor and
15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007