Appeal 2007-1673
Application 10/056,237
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's determination that claims 1-
8 and 27-34 stand or fall together, as do claims 35-42 (see page 3 of
Answer).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' argument for
patentability. 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 rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Wisniewski, like Appellants, discloses a
method of preserving and freezing a biopharmaceutical product inside a
vessel by actively cooling both the interior wall of the vessel and a heat
exchange structure located within the vessel. As acknowledged by the
Examiner, Wisniewski does not disclose actively cooling the heat exchange
structure within the vessel by flowing a fluid through a dual flow conduit.
However, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual determination
that both Kalhori and West evidence that it was known in the art to employ
heat exchange structures comprising a dual flow conduit for freezing
medium within a vessel. Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of
the applied references, we concur with the Examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the known
dual flow conduit in the system of Wisniewski for freezing and preserving a
biopharmaceutical product. The Examiner has supplied the requisite
motivation for modifying the Wisniewski system at page 24 of the Final
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013