Appeal No. 2001-0400
Application No. 08/751,624
obviousness is whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that this process should be carried out and would have a
reasonable likelihood of success, viewed in the light of the prior art. Both the
suggestion and expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in
the applicant’s disclosure.” In re Dow Chemical, 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at
1531.
The references relied on by the examiner in this case do not provide the
required motivation to combine their teachings. Heinmets does not suggest
using chromatographic media other than an ion exchange resin to remove a
phenothiazine dye from treated plasma. Sugiyama and Hodgson, while they
teach removing substances from blood using various adsorbents, do not discuss
adsorption of a phenothiazine dye.
Sugiyama states that the object of his invention was “to remove soluble
poison substances” from blood (column 2, line 13), which are defined as
substances resulting from renal failure or liver failure, such as creatinine, uric
acid, and urea. Column 1, lines 16-20. Sugiyama also teaches that the
particular chromatographic medium used will depend on what substances are to
be removed from the blood. Column 2, lines 43-45. Sugiyama does not discuss
what media would be effective for removing a phenothiazine dye from blood.
Hodgson is directed to a method for removing “for instance, barbiturates
or other poisons” from blood. Similar to Sugiyama, Hodgson provides no reason,
suggestion, or motivation for using the disclosed process to remove a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007