Appeal No. 97-1176
Application 08/003,673
examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Turning to the standing § 103 rejection, even if we were to
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
dispose the water treatment material D of Spence in a perforated
casing in view of the teachings of Ekins, the claimed subject
matter would not ensure. This is because, notwithstanding the
examiner’s argument to the contrary in the paragraph spanning
pages 6 and 7 of the answer, there is nothing in the combined
teachings of Spence and Ekins that teaches, suggests or infers
that at least one of the openings in the casing should be above
the upper surface of the body of water-treatment material so that
the water within the housing makes contact with the water-
treatment material essentially only across its upper surface, as
called for in the penultimate paragraph of claim 15.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the combined teachings of Spence
and Ekins which suggests that the remaining openings in the
casing should be of such size that the contact between the water
in the housing and the water-treatment material by virtue of the
remaining openings does not have any significant effect on the
dissolving of the water-treatment material, as called for in the
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007