Appeal No. 1999-0031
Application No. 08/168,438
Since the prior art provides insufficient motivation to modify the process
taught by Heinmets by substituting macroporous polymeric beads for the ion
exchange resin used by Heinmets, the prior art does not support a prima facie
case of obviousness. We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.3
Other Issues
The examiner did not reject claims 35-37 for anticipation. Claims 35-37
depend from claims 31-33, respectively, and add the limitation that the
photoproduct removed from the body fluid is selected from Azure A and Azure B.
Azure A and Azure B are photoproducts of methylene blue. Specification, page
3. We have concluded that Mohr anticipates claims 31-33 and that the process
disclosed by Mohr reasonably appears to inherently remove photoproducts of
methylene blue from a treated blood product. See pages 6 to 7, supra. Thus,
claims 35-37 would also appear to be anticipated by Mohr. Upon return of this
application, the examiner should consider whether claims 35-37 should be
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mohr.
Summary
We affirm the rejection for anticipation because the prior art process
reasonably appears to be identical to the process of claim 31 and Appellants
have provided no evidence in rebuttal. However, we reverse the rejections for
obviousness because the cited references do not provide the requisite motivation
3 We also note that none of the references relied on by the examiner disclose the specific virus
inactivating agents recited in claims 6, 14, 16, 25, and 26. These deficiencies would require
reversal of the rejection with respect to these claims even if the rejection was affirmed with
respect to the broader claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007