Appeal No. 1997-2936
Application No. 08/360,335
Page 5
3. For example, the water splitter shown in figure 3 indicates
that the salt compartment is in a different location (middle)
than the salt compartment shown in figure 2 (far right).
We also find that while Mani describes in detail the
structure shown in figure 2 (e.g., the location of each type of
membrane as described in column 6, lines 59-68 and column 7,
lines 1-1), Mani does not provide a detailed description of the
structure for the three compartment water splitter shown in
figure 3. In this context, Mani discloses that any means capable
of splitting water into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions may be used
(column 6, lines 36-39). Hence, Mani does not indicate that the
splitter in figure 3 must be the splitter in figure 2. Moreover,
Mani does not indicate the positions of each kind of membrane in
figure 3.
The examiner does not address (1) the apparent differences
between the splitter shown in figure 2 and the splitter shown in
figure 3, or (2) the lack of description of the splitter shown in
figure 3. Nor does the examiner provide an explanation showing
that the water splitter in figure 2 is the same as the water
splitter in figure 3. Therefore, we cannot find support for the
examiner’s interpretation of figure 3.
Furthermore, we find that figure 2 meets some of the
limitations of appellants’ claim 1 (e.g., the location of each
type of membrane), and that figure 3 meets some of the
limitations of appellants’ claim 1 (e.g., introducing an alkali
metal halide into the acidic compartment). However such is
insufficient for a proper anticipation rejection. That is, for a
proper anticipation rejection, the reference must clearly and
unequivocally disclose the claimed invention without any need for
picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007