Appeal No. 2001-0065
Application 09/048,289
with the Appellants that the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of putting forth a
prima facie case of obviousness, and reverse this rejection as it applies to claims 21-24.
New Ground of Rejection
We enter a new ground of rejection under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as
their invention.
Specifically, recycling rejects from the washer of step (b) to another washer and
then back to step (b) appears to create an endless loop of washing of rejects.
Additionally, the Appellants have characterized the additional step in this claim as being
“between steps (c) and (d)” (Appeal Brief, page 10, line 15) whereas the claim itself
calls for the additional step to be between steps (b) and (c).
Other Issues
Upon return of this case, the Examiner should clarify the language of claim 14,
and then reassess the patentability of the claims, with particular attention to claims 9,
10, 14, 15, and 21-24. If rejections are to be maintained, the Examiner should clearly
identify each claim rejected and how the art or knowledge of one of skill in the art is
applied.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 6, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahs without Mannbro, is reversed. The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4,
26
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007