Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
We do not agree with the appellant’s interpretation of
the prior art. First, we do not find that Stahl teaches only a
product space at below atmospheric pressure as suggested by
appellant throughout the briefs. Nor, do we understand Stahl
to “clearly indicate[] that the pressure difference between the
slightly elevated positive pressure in the pressure chamber and
the subatmospheric pressure in the product space can be selected
according to [the] filtration problem[]” (emphasis ours) (reply
brief, Paper No. 23, page 4). Appellant repeatedly contends
that Stahl indicates that the pressure is only slightly elevated
without any reference to a specific passage in Stahl teaching
such limitation. We find no such limiting teaching in Stahl.
With respect to the embodiment shown in Figure 2, Stahl
specifically states that the pressure differential between the
space under positive pressure and the product space can be
adjusted up to a maximum value that can be selected exclusively
according to the requirements of the filtration problem (trans-
lation, pages 3 and 7). Throughout the specification, as
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007