Appeal No. 2002-1356
Application No. 09/206,063
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to representative claims 5, 11 and 17. In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
Brief for the appellants' arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Background
According to appellant’s specification, pages 2-3:
[c]onventional peritoneal dialysis solutions contain glucose as an osmotic
agent to maintain the osmotic pressure of the solution higher than the
physiological osmotic pressure (about 285 mOsmol/kg). Glucose is a
preferred osmotic agent because it provides rapid ultrafiltration rates.
However, certain disadvantages have become associated with the use of
glucose.
For example, glucose is known to decompose to 5-hydroxymethyl-
furfural (5-MHF) in an aqueous solution during autoclaving or steamed
sterilization. ....
One family of compounds capable of serving as osmotic agents in
peritoneal dialysis solutions is icodextrins, including maltodextrins.
However, while these compounds are suitable for use as osmotic agents,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007