Appeal No. 96-3679
Application 08/179,861
and then back through the reverse osmosis unit to recover a “second purified water stream” as required
by appellants’ claims. The patentee discloses recycling only the first fraction through the reverse osmosis
unit via a deionizer. The French patent discloses various embodiments of this basic process, see Figures
2-6, but all of these embodiments require passing a first fraction through the reverse osmosis membrane
more than once. The claims on appeal require that the “first purified water stream” be passed through the
reverse osmosis membrane only once. Appellants argue that this feature of the claims renders the claims
patentably distinct from the claimed subject matter.
We find ourselves in agreement with appellants. In her rejection (paper no. 5) and in the answer,
the examiner has not explained, and we are unable to find any teaching or suggestion of, how the French
patent meets the claim requirement that the purified water systems pass through the reverse osmosis
membrane only once. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The examiner also rejected claims 2-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined
teachings of the French patent in view of Ackermann or Hanna. We will not sustain this rejection. Since
neither Ackermann nor Hanna make up for the deficiencies of the French patent, we must reverse this
rejection.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007