Appeal No. 2005-1662
Application No. 09/996,505
The primary ref [i.e., reference] REDY teaches a
cartridge with several layers, but does not teach one
of the layers is or as having SZC. The secondary ref
[i.e., reference] Polak teaches SZC as a known
state-of-the-art phosphate ion absorber (Polak col 6
lines 1-2). The main thrusts of Appellants’ [sic]
arguments are that Polak does not teach SZC as a layer
or teach “two layers”, and that there is no motivation
to combine the references. With respect to the argument
that Polak does not teach SZC as a layer, the rejection
does not require that Polak teach SZC as a layer.
“Layers” are taught by REDY. Polak teaches SZC. (Polak
does teach about layers in the description of the prior
arts). Re the motivation, one of ordinary skill in the
art would be motivated to use SZC in or as one of the
layers in REDY because of its ability to absorb
phosphate ions. One of ordinary skill in the art also
would use the teaching of Polak in the teaching of REDY
for Polak’s teaching of “elimination of urea” (see col
6 lines 9-1 1).
It may also be noted that HZO used by REDY
(HZO-Ac, which is the acetate form of HZO) is
equivalent in function to SZC because HZO is used as a
phosphate absorber in REDY, and the Polak ref teaches
that HZO is the state-of-the-art for phosphate
absorption, which would give motivation to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use SZC in place of HZO.
Appellants’ [sic] argument that examiner is taking
the position that the ZrP from the multi-layered REDY
cartridge is replaced with MGP of Polak which includes
SZC is not correct. Examiner does not need to take
such a position, even though one of ordinary skill in
the art could do so. One of ordinary skill in the art
could simply add a layer of SZC or MGP+SCZ to the REDY
cartridge, or substitute SZC for the HZO-Ac, for the
reasons stated above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007