Appeal No. 2005-1344 Page 7
Application No. 08/468,610
employed herein refers to a solid support matrix containing within
its backbone an ionizable functionality. Such ionizable
functionalities are similar to ionizable ligands with the exception that
the ionizable ligand is pendent to the backbone of the solid support
matrix whereas the ionizable functionality is incorporated into the
backbone.
On reflection, it may be that appellants’ intended the term “ionizable groups” in
their statements regarding the Amberlite IRC 50® resin to mean “ionizable
functionalities,” which are part of the backbone of the solid support matrix, and
therefore differ from “ionizable ligands,” which are pendent to the backbone of
the solid support matrix.
For clarity, we direct attention to claims 1 and 16. Claim 16 refers to “a
solid support matrix having a selected ionizable functionality incorporated into the
backbone thereof” instead of an “ionizable ligand covalently attached to the
matrix” as set forth in claim 1. While the Brief, and Answer fail to make it clear, it
appears that this difference in terminology is significant. Specifically, claim 16
requires the selected ionizable functionality to be incorporated into the backbone
of the matrix.7 Stated differently, while claim 1 appears to be directed to a resin
of the type illustrated in Figure 8A of appellants’ specification, claim 16 appears
to be directed to a resin of the type illustrated in Figure 8C of appellants’
specification.
The record before us on appeal, however, does not clearly address this
construction of the claimed invention. Specifically, as discussed above, the
examiner fails to appreciate this difference in the claims.
7 See Brief, page 10, wherein appellants assert, “[i]ndependent claim 16 is similar to claim 1
discussed above, with at least one exception: the resin’s ionizable functionality is incorporated
into the backbone of the solid support matrix.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007