Appeal No. 1997-0537
Application No. 07/749,554
the fluid passing through cylinders 15 and 16 of Mindler "must
inherently travel downwardly through these chambers" (page 5
of answer, emphasis original), the examiner does not explain
how such downward movement of fluid inherently results in a
retaining of the contact media. In Mindler, the resin is
separated from the water in separating zone 17 and, to some
degree, the resin is retained in the bottom of the separating
zone, not in the zone between cylinders 13 and 15.
Since Cooper is not relied upon by the examiner to modify
the vertically arranged chambers of Mindler, Cooper does not
alleviate the deficiencies of Mindler discussed above with
respect to the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, it follows
that we will also not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 3 under § 103 over Cooper in view of Mindler.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007