Appeal 2006-2453
Application 10/302,391
The Examiner made the following four grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Simonetti;
2. Claims 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over,
Simonetti;
3. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over, Bray; and
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sirnonetti.
ISSUES
1. The Examiner’s contention is that Simonetti teaches a method of
preparing a leaf packet for a spiral filtration module comprising applying a
UV curable adhesive to a surface of the membrane at the fold line, such that
the adhesive reinforces the membrane at the fold line. Appellant’s
contention is that Simonetti only applies adhesive where leak paths exist,
i.e., along the edges of the membrane sheet and in isolated existing cracks
near the membrane fold line. Appellant maintains that, in filling discrete
cracks, the artisan would not apply adhesive “across the width of the
membrane” nor would there be any reason for the artisan to divide the
membrane sheet across its width "within the portion of said membrane sheet
to which said adhesive is applied.” The issue before us is whether the
Examiner has established that Simonetti inherently discloses applying a UV
curable adhesive across the width of the membrane sheet.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013