Appeal No. 2005-1344 Page 6
Application No. 08/468,610
While appellants disclose (specification, page 17) that “Figure 8C
illustrates a resin having [an] ionizable functionality or a mixture of ionizable
functionalities incorporated into the backbone of the solid support matrix,” we find
no evidence of record to suggest that these functionalities are not
“incorporated” through covalent bonds. Nevertheless, in addressing the
anticipation rejection, appellants assert (Brief, page 8) that the “ionizable
functionality on the [Amberlite IRC 50®] resin [taught by the Boardman prior art
reference] is a carboxylic acid group, which in incorporated into the resin when it
is synthesized.” According to appellants (id.), “the ionizable group of IRC-50 is
part of the resin’s solid support matrix; it is not covalently attached to the matrix
through a chemical transformation.” We must admit that this assertion is
somewhat puzzling – if not through a covalent bond, how is the ionizable group
on the Amberlite IRC 50® resin “incorporated” into the resin when it is
synthesized? Appellants fail to favor this record with any evidence
demonstrating that the ionizable group on the Amberlite IRC 50® resin, or on a
resin such as the one illustrated in appellants’ Figure 8C, is not covalently
attached. The examiner also fails to develop this record by routing out the proper
construction of the claimed invention. Instead, the examiner simply asserts
(Answer, page 16), “[a]ppellant’s [sic] claims simply do not exclude resins having
the ionizable ligand as part of the solid matrix.”
Upon consideration of the record, we find that appellants disclose
(specification, bridging paragraph, pages 17-18),
[t]he phrase “a solid support matrix having a selected
ionizable functionality incorporated into the backbone thereof” as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007