Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 16
Application No. 08/336,402
substantially indistinct from the product of claim 5. While much
is made by appellants regarding the claim 5 process requirement
of employing .01 to 1 micron mean diameter particles in forming
their product porous member, appellants have not established that
products within the scope of claim 5 that are made with the use
of such particles are patentably distinct from the product of
Pall.
With regard to dependent claim 6, appellants have not
furnished a separate argument in accordance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1996). Accordingly, our disposition of
the examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claim 6 follows from
our disposition of that rejection as to independent claim 1. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1526-1527
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
Concerning product claims 21 and 22, we note that the added
features of those dependent claims are drawn to refinements with
respect to how the product is made. Absent evidence or
persuasive scientific reasoning explaining how the alleged
process limitations recited in those claims necessarily result in
a patentably distinct product, we find ourselves in agreement
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007