Appeal No. 1997-1817
Application No. 08/139,693
Statement entered February 14, 1994 (Paper No. 4). We note that Kroyer discusses
extracorporeal processing of body fluids to kill viruses, e.g., HIV, and undesired cells
therein, using heat and, optionally, adding virus-attenuating pharmaceuticals to the fluid
while it is in the extracorporeal device and/or exposing the fluid in the device to UV light,
etc.
In the event of any further action by the examiner, we urge the examiner to
structure his § 103 rejection consistent with the inquiries that are required for
establishing a factual basis to support a legal conclusion of obviousness as set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), e.g., using the
model set forth in Section 706.02(j) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) as follows:
the examiner should set forth ... (1) the relevant teachings of the prior art
relied upon, preferably with reference to the relevant column or page
number(s) and line number(s), where appropriate, (2) the difference or
differences in the claim over the applied reference(s), (3) the proposed
modification of the applied reference(s) necessary to arrive at the claimed
subject matter, and (4) an explanation why such proposed modification
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made.
Adherence to this model will ensure that the examiner considers the claims individually
and that the statement of the rejection will clearly and concisely apply the relevant
evidence of obviousness to the subject matter of an individual claim.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007