Appeal No. 2006-0274
Application No. 09/415,890
they are removed by the same method, simultaneously, it would appear that
evaporating the solvent and discarding the supernatant comprising the buffered
aqueous solution (PBS) would meet the claim limitation “(c) removing more than 50% of
the dipolar aprotic solvent and/or acid and aqueous secondary solvent.” Upon return of
the application to the examiner, the examiner should carefully review the entire
disclosure of Janoff. The examiner should determine whether Janoff specifically
describes a step of “(c) removing more than 50% of the dipolar aprotic solvent and/or
acid and aqueous secondary solvent” and specifically indicate portions of Janoff which
describe each claim feature. If appropriate, a rejection of the claims should be made.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we reverse the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) over
Janoff and under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Janoff in view of Szoka. We direct the
examiner’s attention to the Other Issue for Consideration noted herein.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007