Appeal No. 2005-0209
Application 09/274,014
(b) an interactive polymer network which fills the pores and is coated on the surface of
the mineral oxide matrix, so that subsequent interaction with macromolecules occurs on the
external surface area of the support.
2. The dense mineral oxide solid supports of Claim 1, having a density in the range of
about 1.7 to 11.
7. The dense mineral oxide solid supports of claim 1, wherein the pore volume is 5% to
2% of the total volume of the mineral oxide matrix.
11. The dense mineral oxide solid supports of claim 10, wherein the soluble organic
polymer is a polysaccharide or a mixture of polysaccharides.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Davis, Jr., et al. (Davis) 4,203,772 May 20, 1980
Girot et al. (Girot) 5,445,732 Aug. 29, 1995
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 22 and 59 through 63 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Girot alone or in view of Davis (answer, pages
8-12).
Appellants group the appealed claims as claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 13 through 22, claims 2,
3, 6 and 59 through 63, claims 7, 8 and 60 and claims 11-12, and provides arguments for the
separate patentability of the claims of each group (brief, e.g., pages 9-10). Thus, we decide this
appeal based on appealed claims 1, 2, 7 and 11 as representative of the fours groups of claims.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003); see also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004;
69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
dense mineral oxide solid supports encompassed by appealed claims 1, 2, 7 and 11 would have
been obvious over Girot alone or as combined with Davis to one of ordinary skill in this art at
the time the claimed invention was made. In view of the established prima facie case of
obviousness, we again consider the record as a whole with respect to this ground of rejection in
light of appellants’ rebuttal arguments in the brief and reply brief. See generally, In re Oetiker,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007