Appeal No. 95-2970
Application No. 07/995,106
pages 4 and 5), the examiner does not come to grips with those
recited concentrations. In the Answer, page 5, line 4, the
examiner states that "extensive information is available in
the art" respecting the concentrations of components in the
dialysis solution. A reference to "extensive information . .
. available in the art," however, is insufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness. The Klein and Steudle references,
coupled with uncited and unretrieved "information . . .
available in the art" do not provide an adequate factual
foundation serving to support a conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness of claim 1 or claims 2 through 9 which
depend directly or indirectly therefrom. The rejection of
claims 1 through 9 over the cited prior art is reversed.
OTHER ISSUES:
Upon the return of this case to the examining group, we
urge the examiner to step back and consider anew the question
of patentability of at least claims 1 and 10 in light of Klein
(5,039,609) and the below noted case law.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007