Appeal No. 98-1316
Application No. 08/420,896
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Jacobsen.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jacobsen.
Claims 2 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Lee.
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Romanelli.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Polaschegg.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Gaudin.
Each of the above-noted rejections is bottomed on the
examiner's view that
Jacobsen discloses a catheter 12, a single circuit
dialysate reservoir container (the entire fluid
circuit 4 that is a source of dialysate fluid), and
a single pump 72. Jacobsen discloses in column 4,
lines 20-24 that a patient[']s peritoneal fill
volume is typically from 1.5 to 3 liters. Jacobsen
also discloses in column 4, line 55 that the
dialysis system uses about 3 liters of dialysate to
perform the dialysis instead of the normal 40 liters
with other systems. Jacobsen discloses the volume
of dialysate in the single circuit dialysate
reservoir container as being about 1 and ½ times the
patient[']s fill volume. [Answer, pages 3 and 4.]
Even if we were to agree with the examiner that the
volume of dialysate in Jacobsen's system is about 1½ times the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007