Appeal No. 2006-0900
Application No. 10/368,915
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for any
particular claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 39.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement
with the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s legal conclusion
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ the silicone derivatized macromolecules of
Dvornic, which are essentially the same as the claimed
macromolecules, as the chemically bound dendrimers in the
chromatographic separation process of Neumann. Rather, it is
appellants’ contention that the claimed “purification process”
is not a liquid chromatographic process and, therefore, the
disclosures of Neumann and Dvornic are not directed to the
claimed purification process. Appellants assert there is a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007