Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 15
Application No. 08/336,402
material for making the filter of Pall.3 Not withstanding
appellants’ protestations to the contrary, this obviousness
conclusion is buttressed by Pall’s discussion (page 32, lines
5-11) with respect to advantages of a filter made according to
Pall’s invention over available prior art microporous membranes
and ceramic filters. Consequently, we agree with the examiner
that a ceramic product corresponding to the product of claim 2 is
reasonably suggested by Pall.
With regard to dependent claim 5, we agree with the examiner
that Pall suggests the use of a mixture of particle sizes for the
particles used to impregnate the pores of the porous body. See,
e.g. page 2, lines 1-10, page 4, line 19 through page 5, line 11,
page 7, line 6 through page 8, line 23, page 10, lines 12-16,
page 13, lines 12-14 and page 15, lines 1-10 of Pall. Given the
result effectiveness of the sizes of the particles employed as
discussed by Pall, we agree with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the use of
particle sizes so as to result in a final product that is
3 See the definitions of aluminum silicate, asbestos, ceramic and
refractory at pages 38, 81, 183 and 755 of Hawley, The Condensed Chemical
Dictionary, 8th ed. (1971), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company (copy attached to
decision).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007