Appeal 2006-0931
Application 10/312,054
There is no dispute that Carbonell and Bergrund individually describe the
method recited in claim 1, except for the claimed functionally defined properties
for a cation-exchanger as shown below:
[C]apable of
(a) binding said substance by cation-exchange in an aqueous
liquid reference (II) at an ionic strength corresponding to 0.3 M
NaCl[;] and
(b) permitting a break through [sic., breakthrough] capacity for
said substance > 200% of the breakthrough capacity of said substance
for a reference cation-exchanger (2) containing sulphopropyl groups –
CH2CH2CH2SO2O-.
Nor is there any dispute that Carbonell describes a cation-exchanger corresponding
to the cation-exchanger recited in claim 22, except for the claimed functionally
defined properties as show below:
[H]aving a breakthrough capacity for at least one of the reference
protein selected from the group consisting of human serum albumin,
lysozym and IgG, which is > 200% of the corresponding breakthrough
capacity obtained for a sulphopropyl cation-exchanger (cation-
exhanger 2) with essentially the same support matrix, degree of
substitution, counterion etc as cation-exchanger (1) and under
essentially the same running conditions as for determining the
breakthrough capapcity for cation-exchanger (1)… [Emphasis added.]
Thus, the dispositive question is whether the functional limitations recited in
claims 1 and 22 would have rendered the claimed cation-exchanger patentably
different from those described in the prior art references. On this record, we
answer this question in the negative.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007