Appeal No. 95-3830 Application No. 07/942,460 predetermined clearance. Opinion We do not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 15-17, 20-22, 25 and 26. The teachings of Shouldice et al., Lipps et al., Veech and Polaschegg '053 would not have reasonably suggested the appellant's claimed invention.2 In the examiner's answer, the examiner explained in a meaningful manner, for the first time, his application of Shouldice et al. to the rejected claims. He further indicated (answer at 3 and at 4) that the secondary references Lipps et al., Veech and Polaschegg are cumulative with respect to the teachings of Shouldice et al. In our view, there is error in the examiner's analysis. It concerns the requirement in all three independent claims 12, 17, and 22 for (1) a computation means responsive to data received from the measurement means "for calculating an actual clearance of the artificial kidney for a type of impurity," and for (2) a control means which performs a certain control function based on a comparison between the calculated clearance and a predetermined The appellant’s supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 18)2 filed March 31, 1995, was not entered or considered by the examiner. Accordingly, we have not considered the supplemental reply brief. -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007