Appeal 2007-0711
Reexamination 90/006,706
103(a) in view of the combined prior art teachings, and affirm the appealed
rejections.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 is reproduced below (Appeal Br. (Br.) VIII. Claims
Appendix (App.)):
1. In a process for the separation of at least one enantiomer
from a mixture of chiral organic materials by simulated moving bed
chromatography using an achiral liquid mobile phase and a solid
stationary phase having at least one organic material with a chiral
recognition site, the improvement comprising:
comparing the effect of a plurality of achiral liquid mobile
compositions on at least one of k’, solubility, and selectivity; and
effecting said separation by selecting and using one of said
plurality of achiral liquid mobile phase compositions which affords a
retention capacity, k’, such that 0.1<k’<1.0.
Claim 1 is written in Jepson format. See Ex parte Jepson, 1917 Dec.
Comm’r Pat 62 (Comm’r Pat 1917); 37 CFR § 1.75(e). When Jepson format
is used, an applicant impliedly admits that the subject matter recited in the
preamble up to the phrase “the improvement being” is old in the art. In re
Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 909-10, 200 USPQ 504, 510 (CCPA 1979).
Accordingly, we conclude that the invention defined by the claims on appeal
is an improvement in known simulated moving bed chromatographic
(SMBC) processes which utilized an achiral liquid mobile phase and a solid
stationary phase comprising an organic material with a chiral recognition
site to separate at least one enantiomer from a mixture of chiral organic
compounds. The claimed improvement in the known SMBC process
involves two steps in the selection of the achiral liquid mobile phase
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013