Ex Parte 5518625 et al - Page 2

                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