Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to employ the cartridge formation technique
of Mancusi in combination with the hollow fiber membrane assembly
formation method of Huang in forming a separation device (contactor). Nor
do Appellants specifically contest the Examiner’s additional reliance on
Bikson for suggesting mold potting. Rather, Appellants basically maintain
that such a combination would not result in a method of forming the hollow
fiber membrane contactor using two potting steps because Mancusi does not
teach or suggest two potting steps (Br. 32 and 33). However, for the
reasons set forth above with respect to the Examiner’s Rejection H, we
disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to the teaching or
suggestion of two potting steps by Mancusi with or without Bikson. In
addition, we further note that Huang teaches or suggests that a potted bundle
of hollow fiber fabric wrapped around a tube is fitted in a suitable housing
(shell) and the bundle tube sheets are sealed to the interior of the housing by
using solvent resistant resin (a second potting), as an option (Huang; col. 8,
l. 31 – col. 9, l. 16 and col. 13, l. 32 – col. 15, l. 7). As such, Appellants
arguments and asserted Runkle Declaration are not persuasive in asserting
that the evidence relied upon by the Examiner would not have taught or
suggested two potting steps, as called for in representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we shall also affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 18, and 19 over Huang in view of Mancusi
and Bikson (Rejection P).
Likewise, we affirm Rejections Q, R, and S as presented in the
Answer for the reasons stated above with respect to Rejection P. In this
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013