Appeal No. 95-3830
Application No. 07/942,460
impurities as far as artificial kidneys are concerned and thus
cannot satisfy claim features directed to calculating or
performing something specific to "a type of impurity."
Alternatively, the examiner found (answer at 3) that "it
would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, at
the time the invention was made, to substitute conductivity
meters for the pressure sensors of Shouldice et al. We disagree.
The examiner has articulated no motivation for one with ordinary
skill in the art to replace Shouldice et al.'s pressure sensors
with conductivity meters. Conductivity meters do not measure
pressure. The examiner also has not pointed to any useful
purpose that would be recognized by one with ordinary skill in
the art for having conductivity meters positioned upstream and
downstream of the dialysis liquid in Shouldice et al. In any
event, merely having the conductivity meters do not equate to or
reasonably suggest calculating the actual "clearance for a type
of impurity," comparing the calculated clearance with a
predetermined clearance, and performing various control functions
based on the results of the comparison.
Finally, with regard to claim 22, the examiner has not
explained where in Shouldice et al. he finds that the duration of
treatment has been calculated. Simply terminating operations
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007