Appeal No. 1996-2209
Application No. 08/031,346
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). With this as background, we analyze the prior art
applied by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
The examiner indicates that DT’91 provides evidence of a device for extracorporeal
germicidal action and peroxide formation in the blood which works by oxygenating or
irradiating blood. Answer, page 8; DT ‘91 translation pages 5-6. The examiner recognizes
that DT’91 ozonizes untreated blood, whereas in the method of the claimed process, the
ozonation occurs with fractionated (desaggregated) blood wherein the fractions are exposed
to uninhibited attack of ozone. Answer, page 8, paragraph 3.
In order to cure the above noted deficiency of DT’91, the examiner relies on Zee to
establish evidence that blood and blood components may be disinfected by means of ozone
treatment in the presence of ascorbic acid. Similarly, Wiesehahn is relied on for the
disclosure of the treatment of biological compositions, such as whole blood or blood
components, with radiation in the presence of psoralens, which are aromatic carbonyl carriers.
Edelson is relied on as evidence of immunomodulatory extracorporeal treatment of blood by
exposure to ultraviolet radiation in the presence of carbonyl carriers, such as psoralens and
ascorbic acid, for the treatment of hyperimmune and autoimmune diseases.
Appellant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established by
the examiner, as none of the cited references disclose a process of producing a suspension,
as claimed, which requires desaggregating or fractionating the body fluids by reducing the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007