Appeal No. 1999-0342
Application 08/184,813
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Alsop.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is established
when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An obviousness analysis requires that the prior art
both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable expectation of success
to one reasonably skilled in the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438,
1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by the
examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
The examiner suggests that Alsop establishes knowledge in the art of a peritoneal
dialysis composition containing a glucose polymer, wherein at least 80% by weight of the
polymer is of molecular weight in the range of 5000 to 50,000, also including electrolytes,
buffers, and amino acids. Answer, page 3. The examiner acknowledges that Alsop does
not disclose the claimed specific amounts of glucose polymers (note that maltodextrin is a
glucose polymer) and amino acids. Answer, pages 3-4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007