Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 19
Application No. 08/336,402
steps disclosed by Pall as part of the formation of the final
product. We disagree. With regard to the functional limitation
of “thereby forming restricted passages” as recited in claim 7,
we note that the heat treatment of Pall also has the function of
being a part of the formation of the micropores (restricted
passages) therein. In this regard, we note that claim 7 is open
to the heat treatment recited therein functioning as a drying
step or curing step that is part of the restricted passage
formation method. We note that claim 7 is not limited to the
preferred embodiments referred to at page 5 of the reply brief.
Consequently, we do not find appellants’ contentions regarding a
fundamental distinction over Pall with respect to this step to be
persuasive.
With regard to dependent claim 14, we note that no lower
limit for the temperature range recited is specified.
Consequently, we agree with the examiner’s conclusion that Pall
reasonably suggests a heat treatment temperature within the scope
of claim 14.
With regard to claim 19, appellant (brief, page 25) urges
that Pall does not teach the use of a resin emulsion as required
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007