Ex parte BENE - Page 4

          Appeal No. 95-3830                                                          
          Application No. 07/942,460                                                  

               predetermined clearance.                                               
               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.                                                                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007