Ex Parte NAKATANI et al - Page 4



             Appeal No. 2001-1264                                                              Page 4                
             Application No. 08/819,630                                                                              
             requisite fact finding needed in order to properly reach a conclusion of obviousness                    
             under this section of the statute.                                                                      
                    For example, the statement of the first rejection which appears in the paragraph                 
             bridging pages 3-4 of the Answer, reads as follows:                                                     
                    Boos et al teach passing body fluid over solid absorption [sic,                                  
                    adsorption] material which is composed of a porous supporting material to                        
                    which functional groups made of natural polyanion chains are covalently                          
                    bound.  The polyanions are polymers or copolymers of styrene type, such                          
                    as styrene sulfonic acid.  See column 2, lines 27-37 and 61.  General                            
                    classes of supports for ion exchange include divinyl-crosslinked                                 
                    polystyrenes.  The fractogel supports can contain anionic functional                             
                    groups.  See Pliura et al, columns 7, 8 and 9.  the specification teaches                        
                    chemokine in body fluids.  Therefore, it would have been obvious to one                          
                    of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to treat body                    
                    fluid containing chemokine with anionic absorbent [sic].                                         
             As seen, the examiner has only concluded that it would have been obvious to “treat                      
             body fluid containing chemokine with anionic absorbent [sic].”  The examiner has not                    
             explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason, suggestion,                   
             motivation, or incentive to combine the prior art facts relied upon in order to arrive at the           
             claimed subject matter.                                                                                 
                    The second rejection based upon Yokohari, Charo, and Okarma suffers from the                     
             same deficiency in that the examiner again failed to provide a reason, suggestion,                      
             motivation, or inventive as to why it would have been obvious to combine the relied                     
             upon teachings of the references in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter.                      
                    A further reason why the examiner’s position is difficult to review is that the                  
             examiner has made a glaring mistake of fact in stating her position.  At page 5 of the                  
             answer the examiner states that “cytokines are generically called chemokines,” citing                   
             page 1, lines 19-20 of the specification.  That portion of the specification actually sets              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007