Ex Parte Cote et al - Page 5

              Appeal 2007-1768                                                                     
              Application 10/377,647                                                               

              skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.  KSR, 127           
              S.Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.                                                    
                    The Examiner found that Smith suggests a process of filtering water            
              containing solids that includes backwashing the membrane at least once a             
              week with a cleaning fluid of selected concentration (Answer 4).  The                
              Examiner found that draining the tank during the cleaning process was                
              known to persons of ordinary skill in the art (Answer 5).  In support of his         
              position, the Examiner cites the Background of the Invention section of the          
              Smith reference.  Smith describes flowing a chemical cleaner through the             
              pores in the membrane in pulse cleaning cycles (col. 11, ll. 29-47; and col.         
              17, ll. 50-56).  Smith discloses that NaOCl is a suitable cleaning solution for      
              cleaning filtering membranes (col. 13, ll. 33-41).  The Examiner contends            
              that the concentration of NaOCl in the cleaning solution and the duration of         
              all cleaning events are result effective variables that depend upon the degree       
              of fouling of the membrane and the quality of the water being treated by the         
              membrane (Answer 5-6).                                                               
                    Appellants contend that the prior art discussed in the Smith reference         
              does not describe part (c) and parts (e) or (f) of claim 16 (Br. 3).  Appellants     
              contend that Smith’s process does not describe parts (b) and (c) of claim 16         
              (Br. 4).  Appellants further contend that parts (e) and (f) of claim 16 are not      
              merely the results of optimizing result effective variables in a known process       
              (Br. 4).                                                                             
                    Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive.  The Examiner in the               
              discussion of the rejection has identified the teachings from both the               
              description of the Smith invention and the Background of the Invention               


                                                5                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013