Appeal 2007-0711
Reexamination 90/006,706
for reexamination of Priegnitz et al. (Priegnitz), U.S. Patent 5,518,625,
which issued May 21, 1996, from Application 08/387,984, filed February
13, 1995). Claims 1-24, all claims pending in the reexamined application,
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined
teachings of:
Negawa et al. (Negawa) - U.S. Patent 5,434,298, issued July 18, 1995
(Application 08/030,063, filed March 12, 1993);
Pirkle et al. (Pirkle) – U.S. Patent 5,256,293, issued October 26, 1993;
Ching et al. (Ching), “Preparative resolution of praziquantel
enantiomers by simulated counter-current chromatography,”
Journal of Chromatography, Vol. 634, pp. 215-219 (1993); and
Snyder et al. (Snyder), Introduction to Modern Liquid
Chromatography, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, pp. 247-268 (1979).
Appellants have not argued the patentability of subject matter defined
by any claim separately from the patentability of Claim 1. While Appellants
refer to independent Claims 1, 16, and 24, reiterate the limitations unique to
each of the independent claims, and identify the basis for those limitations in
the Specification, they only argue the patentability of the subject matter
claimed over the combined prior art teachings relative to the two express
process steps of Claim 1. Accordingly, we identify Claim 1 as
representative of the full scope of the subject matter claimed, consider only
the patentability of the subject matter defined by Claim 1, conclude that the
final rejections of the patentability of all claims on appeal stand or fall
together with the final rejection of independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013