Appeal No. 1999-0031
Application No. 08/168,438
as required by the claims. The examiner relies on either of Sugiyama or
Hodgson to remedy this deficiency. The examiner reasons as follows:
Sugiyama . . . teaches in the claims a method for removing soluble
poisonous substances from blood by bringing the blood into contact
with an absorbent which in claim 4 is activated carbon. In column 2
lines 40-48, the adsorbents may be porous resins, porous alumina,
porous glass or ion exchange resins, selected depending upon the
substances which are to be removed from blood by absorption.
Hodgson . . . teaches a column for purifying blood, in column 2
lines 35-42, the column may be filled with granules having activated
carbon or polystyrene granules. In column 2 lines 55-60, other
polymers are shown. In column 4 line 6, any known particulate
absorbent may be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to employ the macroporous polymeric
beads of either Sugiyama or Hodgson in the method of Heinmets to
remove selected substances from blood because Sugiyama and
Hodgson show such porous polymers are compatible with blood
and effectively remove selected substances.
Examiner’s Answer, pages 6-7.
“The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. It can satisfy this burden only by showing some objective
teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art would lead that individua l to combine the relevant teachings of the
references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (citations omitted). “The consistent criterion for determination of
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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007