Appeal 2005-2193
Application 09/385,405
Schmidt treats waste resulting from the same industrial encapsulation
processes as Appellant (Compare Schmidt, col. 1, ll. 11-22 to Specification
1:17 to 2:5) containing the same types of contaminants (Compare Schmidt,
col. 1, ll. 41-47 and col. 3, ll. 13-25 to Specification 2:19 to 3:3 and 7:1-12).
Appellant further argues that the Schmidt Declaration shows that the
Schmidt waste gelatin stream did not contain a “first component” as claimed
(Request 10). But, Appellant’s argument is circular in nature and
unpersuasive. According to Appellant, because the cartridge filter used in
the test did not remove the vitamin E acetate therein, the Schmidt waste
stream does not contain a first component (Request 10-11). Claim 71 is not
limited to vitamin E acetate, it encompasses “first components” including
the trace contaminants disclosed by Schmidt as effectively removed by hot
filtration (Schmidt, col. 4, ll. 22-31).
Appellant also argues that the two-step filtration process of the
Schmidt Declaration is commensurate-in-scope with the subject matter of
claim 71 (Request 11). But, again, Appellant’s argument is dependent on an
improperly narrow reading of “first component.” The “first component”
claimed is not limited to vitamin E acetate, the tested compound, but instead
encompasses the trace contaminants of Schmidt. Moreover, the treatment of
step (c) recited in claim 71 is not limited to the two-step filtration process set
forth in the Schmidt Declaration but instead is met by the hot filtration step
of Schmidt.
With regard to the rejection of claims 74 and 82 over Schmidt in view
of Dutre, we note that in accordance with Appellant’s statement that the
claims stand or fall together (Br. 10), we selected claim 74 to represent the
issues on appeal with regard to the rejection over Schmidt in view of Dutre.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007