Appeal 2007-4101
Application 09/962,972
The Appellants only rely on the same arguments and evidence discussed
above to rebut the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection (Br. 16-17). Therefore, based on the Factual Findings set
forth in the Answer and above, we also determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject matter
defined by claim 15 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claim 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner has relied on the combined
disclosure of Klabunde and either the admitted prior art or Blaney.
According to the Examiner (Answer 5-6):
Klabunde discloses the claimed invention with the exception of
the recited semipermeable container. Applicant has admitted
(see page 13, lines 15-17 and 23-24, of the specification) that it
is known to place granulated treatment materials in
semipermeable bags. Blaney also teaches placing granulated
treatment materials in semipermeable bags (see Figs. 3 & 4; and
col. 6, lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
provide the fluid treatment system of Klabunde with either the
admittedly known semipermeable container, or the
semipermeable container disclosed by Blaney, in order to
facilitate handling of the treatment material in this primary
reference system.
The Appellants only rely on the same arguments and evidence discussed
above to rebut this rejection (Br. 16-17).
Accordingly, based on the Factual Findings set forth in the Answer
and above, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most
heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claim 27
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013