Appeal No. 2005-1662
Application No. 09/996,505
no disclosure which provides any context or meaning to this
description. It appears to be the examiner’s implicit belief
that the afore-noted description reflects that SZC would be
superior to the HZO-Ac of REDY™ in absorbing phosphate ions.
However, there is simply nothing in the record before us to
support such a belief.
In light of the foregoing, it is our perception that the
examiner has based his motivation for obviousness upon prior art
statements viewed in the abstract such as Polak’s statements that
SZC is a phosphate ion absorber and is state-of-the-art.
Although the test for establishing motivation is what the
combination of prior art statements would have suggested to those
of ordinary skill, such statements must be considered in the
context of the teaching of the entire reference and cannot be
viewed in the abstract. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55
USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Beyond a mere
identification in prior art references of individual components
of claimed subject matter, particular findings must be made as to
reasons why an artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007