Appeal No. 2004-1154
Application No. 09/247,219
appellant that “the invention is an extension of that taught by
the Tomasula patent” presently applied by the examiner (page 8 of
supplemental brief, second paragraph). The Tomasula patent
involves the preparation of a concentrate by “the continuous
removal of solid products from a high pressure system” (column 2,
lines 6-7). According to appellant, the claimed method “avoids
use of objectionable inorganic acids such as hydrochloric acid
and the need for subsequent purification of the isolate from the
acid and other materials conventionally added during
concentration of the protein” (page 3 of principal brief, first
paragraph).
Appealed claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13 and 15-19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasula in view
of Dahlstrom.
Appellant submits at page 7 of the principal brief that
“[c]laims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13 and 15-19 are not considered to be
separately patentable, and all claims are deemed to stand or fall
together.” Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 15.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007