Two phase aqueous extraction of whey proteins in a polyethylene glycol - arabinogalactan system

The whey protein separation potential of aqueous two-phase systems of arabinogalactan [AG] (Lonza FiberAidTM) and polyethylene glycol [PEG], buffered with 10 mmol/g phosphate or citrate buffer, was studied. 100 mmol/g potassium chloride [KCl] was added as required. Previously-published phase equilibrium results were verified and the absorbance of whey protein isolate [WPI] in an AG-PEG solution was measured. The effect of pH, KCl concentration, initial WPI concentrations and upper to lower phase mass ratios on whey partitioning was studied. The best separation system contained 17.20% (w/w) AG, 7.20% (w/w) PEG, 10 mmol citrate buffer (pH 5.4) and 100 mmol KCl per gram of total system. The upper to lower phase mass and volume ratios were 1:1 and 16:11 respectively. Approximately 12 mg (mainly α-lactalbumin) of the 20 mg WPI added partitioned into the AG-rich upper phase. This system has potential to reduce chromatographic requirements in large scale separation of protein mixtures

Patent Abolitionism

In this Article, Professor Janis argues that modem enthusiasm for large-scale legislative reforms in patent law should be received with caution in view of the history of patent law reform. That history suggests that patent law is more resilient--or perhaps more impervious to change-than modem reformers recognize. To explore these propositions, Professor Janis analyzes the history of the mid-Victorian era British patent abolitionism movement. He demonstrates that much of the reform dialogue of that era, from the elucidation of major problems in the patent system, to the formulation of legislative solutions, mirrors quite closely the modem U.S. patent reform debate. He asserts that participants in the modern patent law reform debate should take this history to heart, approaching age-old proposals for large-scale legislative reform with healthy skepticism

Patent Law in the Age of the Invisible Supreme Court

This article examines the permanence of the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s retreat to the peripheries of patent law after the creation of the Federal Circuit, and explores the roles that the Supreme Court might imagine for itself in contemporary patent law. For discussion purposes, the article describes two hypothetical models for Supreme Court decisionmaking in patent cases: an aggressive interventionist model and an extreme non-interventionist model. After considering the shortcomings of both models, the article proposes an intermediate, managerial model. The managerial model rejects the proposition that the Court should intervene in patent cases to correct perceived substantive errors in Federal Circuit decisions. Instead, the model encourages the Court to manage disputes over the appropriate allocation of power among institutions of the patent system. Accordingly, the Court should intervene in patent cases that present such issues, and should direct its opinions towards resolving such issues, leaving the elaboration of detailed substantive patent doctrine to the Federal Circuit