Appeal No. 95-3830
Application No. 07/942,460
disclosed invention calculates the actual "clearance" for
creatinine (page 7).
In our view, it is unreasonable to regard transmembrane
pressure in the exchanger, or either the input or output dialysis
liquid pressure, as the claimed "clearance" for a type of
impurity. The appellant is also correct that the clearance for a
given type of impurity cannot be determined solely on the basis
of detecting the pressure of fresh and used dialysis liquid.
Pressure data alone, including the transmembrane pressure, cannot
reveal how efficient a given type of impurity is being removed.
The examiner has shown no evidentiary basis to find that
Shouldice et al. discloses or reasonably suggests calculating the
"clearance" for a type of impurity, and certainly not comparing
the calculated clearance with a predetermined clearance as the
basis for control. The statement in the examiner's answer that
the claimed computation and control means are inherent in
Shouldice et al. is without adequate support on this record.
Furthermore, it is also unreasonable, in the context of the
appellants' claimed invention, to regard the entirety of the
ultrafiltrate, i.e., that liquid passing in the exchanger from
blood to the dialysate, as the "a type of impurity" contemplated
by the claims. The ultrafiltrate contains all types of
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007