Appeal No. 95-1849
Application 07/681,527
disc to disc. They argue that such is not the case in the Berber
device, wherein the spacing means of Figures 4 and 5 are 0.2 to
0.5 the height of the space (column 2, line 63).
Finally, the appellants draw attention to the fact that
whereas the claimed method is directed to freeing a liquid from a
substance of greater density, the opposite is the case with
Bechtolsheim and with the embodiment of Berber to which the
examiner has referred. Thus, it is argued, the references are
not attacking the same problem as that of the appellants'
invention, nor are their teachings applicable.
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants on all
three of the issues discussed above, for the reasons set forth in
pages 11 through 19 of the Appeal Brief. This being the case, we
conclude that the combined teachings of the two references would
not have suggested the subject matter recited in the claims to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore a prima facie case
of obviousness has not been established with regard to the
subject matter of independent claim 1 or, it follows, that of
dependent claims 2 and 3.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007