Appeal No. 2004-0275
Application No. 09/09/318,186
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
More particularly, appellants argue that Welch does not describe
“synthesizing chiral selectors onto a polymeric synthesis resin. However, the
examiner explains that Liu provides the motivation to combine the polymer base
with Welch and Weingarten by describing the advantages of the use of a
polymer resin over the silica base in preparing chiral molecule selectors.
Answer, pages 6-7.
Additionally, appellants argue that Welch does not describe using the
polymeric resins set forth in claim 60, (i.e., does not describe steps (d) and (e)),
namely the use of a screening library for the resolution of a racemic mixture. The
examiner acknowledges Welch lacks the specific teaching of steps (d) and (e),
but notes that Welch states in both the introduction and conclusion that the
purpose of screening the chiral stationary phases (CSPs) is to identify CSPs
useful for large scale preparative enantioseparation. Answer, page 5. In
addition, Liu recites steps for synthesizing the selector on a base, and
Weingarten uses a selector library to resolve a mixture. Thus, appellants'
arguments are unpersuasive when viewed in light of the combination of
references.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007