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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007