Appeal No. 2001-1162 Page 3 Application No. 08/726,803 This board serves as a board of review. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) ("The [board] shall, on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents . . .."). In this case, the examiner's statement of the rejection which appears on pages 3-9 of the Examiner's Answer is essentially unreviewable. In the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of the Examiner's Answer, the examiner first makes references to the individual references applied and concludes "[t]he claimed invention differs primarily in that it employs a sodium folinate solution. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ a sodium folinate solution in the prior art solution composition since the prior art clearly suggests the same." First, the examiner makes reference to the "claimed invention" instead of discussing the requirement set forth in any individual claim pending in the application. Patentability is determined on a claim-by-claim basis not by making a broad reference to the "claimed invention." Second, the examiner only states what one of ordinary skill in the art would presumably have been "motivated" to do, not what would have been obvious to this hypothetical person. The statutory standard of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is obviousness, not motivation. Third, it is unclear what the examiner means by his suggestion that one would have been motivated to employ a sodium folinate solution in the "prior art solution composition." Simply put, what is the "prior art solution composition" which the examiner seeks to modify by using sodium folinate? The examiner cites to column 16, lines 65-70 of Haeger in support of this conclusion. This portion of Haeger states that sodium folinate can be used in that invention. Thus, it does not appear that it is necessary to substitute sodium folinate into an unknown "prior art solution composition" since the prior art apparently describes the use ofPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007