Appeal No. 1999-0342
Application 08/184,813
produce an equivalent net ultrafiltration at 8 hours and the percent adsorption of glucose
polymers was significantly lower than glucose or maltodextrin alone at the end of 8 hours.
The examiner has not established that Alsop provides a suggestion of the claimed
amounts of maltodextrin, such that the amount of maltodextrin required for ultrafiltration is
reduced by the presence of the amino acid electrolytes, or that the amino acids of Alsop
additionally function as an osmotic agent in combination with maltodextrin.
After evidence or arguments are submitted by the appellants in response to
rejection based on obviousness, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by
a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of the argument.
On balance, we believe that the totality of the evidence presented by the examiner and
appellants weighs in favor of finding the claimed invention to be non-obvious in view of the
cited references. We find the examiner has not established on the record before us that
the cited references both suggest the claimed subject matter and reveal a reasonable
expectation of success to one reasonably skilled in the art. The rejection of the claims for
obviousness of the claimed invention is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Alsop is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007