Appeal No. 96-3854
Application No. 08/027,872
impermissible hindsight that one would provide for parallel
flow in Bach based on Madden’s teachings.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for
the claimed subject matter in view of the applied prior art
references. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims
1, 6, 11 and 16, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 through 15
and 18 through 21 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bach in view of Madden will not be
sustained.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Madden alone, it is
the examiner's position that the only patentable feature set
forth in claim 1 which is not found in Madden is the reverse
osmosis membrane coupon. However, the examiner finds it
obvious
that "the membrane of Madden could originate from a membrane
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007