Appeal No. 1999-0031
Application No. 08/168,438
suggestion and expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in
the applicant’s disclosure.” In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
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
methylene blue from treated plasma. Sugiyama and Hodgson, while they teach
removing substances from blood using macroporous polymeric beads, do not
discuss adsorption of methylene blue 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. Sugiyama does not discuss what media would be
effective for removing methylene blue 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 methylene
blue dye from treated plasma. There is simply no adequate connection made in
the cited references between the methylene blue -containing blood taught by
Heinmets and the chromatographic media taught by Sugiyama and Hodgson.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007