Ex Parte SCHMIDT - Page 7


                                                                                                          Page 7                
               Appeal Number: 2005-2193                                                                                         
               Application Number: 09/385,405                                                                                   
               unexpected results.  When such evidence is presented we must determine whether the totality of                   
               the evidence supports obviousness.4                                                                              
                      Appellant argues that the Schmidt Declaration provides evidence of surprising and                         
               unobvious results (Brief 21-25).  However, the tests discussed in the Schmidt Declaration                        
               compare processes in which the solvent based layer is subjected to treatment by a cartridge filter               
               alone with processes in which a tangential flow filter is added.  The two-step filtration process                
               including the tangential flow filter is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter sought                 
               to be patented by claim 71.  This problem applies to claim 74 as well.  While claim 74 requires a                
               tangential flow filter, that claim does not require cartridge filtration.  The processes of the                  
               Schmidt Declaration require the presence of both filters.                                                        
                      Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, based on the similarities between                   
               the specification and the disclosure of Schmidt, we like the Examiner find no material difference                
               between the processes.  That being the case, it appears from all the evidence before us that                     
               Appellant was in possession of the claimed process and has enabled those of ordinary skill in the                
               art to make and use the same.  Given the discussion of the starting material of gelatin waste, such              
               would appear to inherently contained the claimed “first component” and impurities having                         
               affinity of the solvent.  It would appear that these materials would be removed using the                        
               processes described in the specification without the need for undue experimentation.  We                         
               emphasize that this determination is based on the record before us.  If, in the future, Appellant                
               succeeds in showing that the claimed first component and materials having affinity for the                       



                                                                                                                               
               4 Evidence of secondary indicia such as unexpected results cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on       
               anticipation.  In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).                               





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007