Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 17
Application No. 08/336,402
with the examiner that appellants have not met their burden of
establishing a patentable product distinction over Pall with
respect to those product-by-process claims. Nor have appellants
shown that the cracks referred to in claim 21 are patentably
distinct from the passages formed by the impregnation techniques
of Pall. We also note that unclaimed features cannot be relied
on to distinguish those claims from the applied prior art.
With regard to dependent claim 23, we agree with the
examiner that Pall reasonably suggests that the porous member may
comprise a rigid member since Pall suggests that a variety of
materials, including aluminum and plastics may be used for
constructing the porous body as set forth at page 5, lines 12+ of
Pall. Appellants’ contentions with respect to the relative
thickness of the porous members of Pall (reply brief, page 12)
are not found persuasive since claim 23 does not require any
particular thickness for the claimed porous body or any
particular degree of rigidity or firmness.
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, we shall
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of product claims 1, 2, 4-
6 and 21-23.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007