Appeal No. 96-0889
Application 08/089,944
whereby treated liquid phase flowing into the settling
compartment and biomass is separated from the treated liquid
phase and flows back to the reactor with the aid of the gaslift
circulation.
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Olszewski et al. (Olszewski) 4,477,344 Oct. 16, 1984
Lee 4,664,802 May 12, 1987
Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being anticipated by Olszewski.
Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lee.
After having reviewed the references in light of the
arguments by the examiner and appellants, we find that we cannot
sustain these rejections.
It is axiomatic that for prior art to anticipate under
35 U.S.C. § 102 it has to meet every element of the claimed
invention. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802
F.2d 1367, 1379, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
480 U.S. 947 (1987).
Claim 5 recites that the inclined deflector and the
parallel partitions are at opposite inclined angles with respect
to each other. Since neither reference relied upon by the
examiner recites this feature, neither reference can anticipate
the claimed invention. In Olszewski, the deflector (element 4)
and the partitions (12) are both inclined in the same direction,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007