1 The support wall thickness described by Mahendran is 0.1 mm to 0.7
2 mm, preferably 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm. Col. 8:19-21. The preferred Mahendran
3 wall thickness falls within the scope of Appellants’ thickness of greater than
4 0.2 mm to less than 1.0 mm (claim 1). The preferred Mahendran range
5 overlaps appellants’ thickness of more than 0.15 mm and less than 0.5 mm
6 (claim 17). “[L]ess than 0.5 mm” does not include 0.5 mm.
7 The support wall braid of Mahendran is made up of 20 to 100
8 picks per 25.4 mm (i.e., essentially 1 inch), preferably 5-50 picks.
9 Col. 8:23-26. Appellants’ support has at least 30 picks (i.e., crosses per
10 inch). See also Specification, page 7 ¶ 0016 (“[t]he braid is preferably
11 woven with from 16 to 28 carriers with from about 36 to 44 picks
12 (crosses/inch) …”
13 The porous substance of Mahendran is described as having a wall
14 thickness 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm (col. 15:36—in Mahendran claim 1), including
15 a specific wall thickness of 0.05 mm (col. 12:63). The range of 0.01 mm to
16 0.1 mm overlaps that of Appellants’ claimed range of between 0.05 mm and
17 0.3 mm.
18 Appellants’ separation membrane is used for the same general
19 purpose as the separation membrane described by Mahendran.
20 We assume that Appellants believe that the claimed separation
21 membranes are an improvement over the separation membranes described
22 by Mahendran.2 Specification, pages 1-2, ¶ 0003.
23 Insofar as we can tell, on this record Appellants have not called our
24 attention to any credible experimental scientific evidence which would
2 In deciding the appeal, we have assumed that the Mailvaganam
Mahendran of the prior art reference is the same individual as Mahendran
Mailvaganam named in the application on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013