Appeal No. 95-2970
Application No. 07/995,106
In setting forth the rejection of claims 1 through 9, 21
through 27, and 35 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Klein and
Steudle (Examiner's Answer, pages 4 and 5), the examiner does
not come to grips with the limitation in independent claim 35
requiring "synthetic polypeptides that are approximately 4 to
about 10 amino acids long." The examiner does not explain how
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led
from the disclosures of Klein and Steudle to a peritoneal
dialysis solution comprising, as an osmotic agent, synthetic
polypeptides that are approximately 4 to about 10 amino acids
long and dextrose. Again, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 35 or claims 36
through 40 depending therefrom. The rejection of claims 35
through 40 on prior art grounds is reversed.
Independent claim 1 defines a peritoneal dialysis
solution comprising, as osmotic agents, specific
concentrations of polypeptides and dextrose. In setting forth
the rejection of claims 1 through 9, 21 through 27, and 35
through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Klein and Steudle (Examiner's Answer,
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007