Appeal 2007-1673
Application 10/056,237
197, 200 (CCPA 1966); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
As recognized by Appellants, Kalhori is concerned with a study
investigating the melting and cyclic melting and freezing around a
vertical cylinder. Hence, the walls of the cylinder are heated.
However, Kalhori, as well as West, evidence the obviousness of
employing a dual flow conduit within a cylinder to freeze a liquid
medium therein. Again, Appellants have advanced no reason why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the dual flow
conduits of Kalhori and West inappropriate for the system of
Wisniewski. While Appellants refer to declaration evidence in their
Brief regarding special considerations for biopharmaceutical products,
Appellants have offered no specific analysis and explanation of the
particulars of the declarations. Manifestly, it is not within the province
of this Board to ferret out evidence in the record which supports
Appellants’ argument. Nor have Appellants set forth a convincing
rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
considered a dual flow conduit suitable for freezing biopharmaceutical
products. Moreover, Appellants make no argument that the
declaration evidence establishes unexpected results associated with
methods of preserving biopharmaceutical products within the scope of
the appealed claims.
As a final point, although the present application is related to
co-pending applications presently on appeal, U.S. Serial No.
08/895,396 (Appeal No. 2007-0867) and U.S. Serial No. 09/881,909
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013