Ex Parte Dolnik et al - Page 7



             Appeal No.  2005-1918                                                              Παγε 7               
             Application No. 09/946,396                                                                              
             flour” containing 3.5-4.0% protein.  Reference “Q” also starts with guar flour (of                      
             unknown protein content).  Reference “S” does not discuss protein content at all, and                   
             merely says that whole carob seed or guar seed “is normally ground to a fine powder,                    
             and the gum is extracted by prolonged stirring with hot or cold water, or dilute, aqueous               
             sodium hydroxide solution; [or] sometimes, 1% acetic acid has been used.  The soluble                   
             portion of the gun is then separated by centrifugation or extraction, and the                           
             polysaccharide is recovered by precipitation with ethanol” or methanol or isopropanol.                  
             “Purification of the crude galactomannan is achieved either by repeated precipitations                  
             with alcohol” and “[t]he purification step may be repeated several times.”  Reference “T”               
             uses locust bean gum as a starting material, rather then guar gum.                                      
                    Dr. Gurske does not begin to account for, or even acknowledge, these                             
             differences between Gebert and the prior art references.  In our view, Gebert and the                   
             prior art references are not directly comparable, and do not provide an adequate                        
             evidentiary basis to support Dr. Gurske’s conclusion that Gebert’s purified                             
             galactomannans must have contained at least 0.40% protein.  Moreover, Dr. Gurske’s                      
             conclusion that “the protein content values reflected in [Gebert] at column 15, Table 4,                
             (i.e., 0.06% and 0.00%)” should really have been at least 0.40%, “and are likely[ ] due to              
             measuring errors resulting from the sensitivity limitations of the [Kjeldahl] method”                   
             (Declaration, page 3) appears to be inconsistent with Dr. Gurske’s acknowledgement                      
             that “[t]he sensitivity of the Kjeldahl method . . . [is] about 0.1 wt%” (id., page 4).                 
                    In our view, the examiner has met his burden of providing sufficient evidence to                 
             establish a prima facie case of anticipation, properly shifting the burden of coming                    
             forward with evidence or argument to appellants.  Having carefully considered                           
             appellants’ response, we find the evidence and arguments presented to be insufficient                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007