Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 18
Application No. 08/336,402
However, our disposition of the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of product claim 3 over Pall is another matter. Here, we agree
with appellants that Pall does not teach using a porous member
with a mean pore diameter as recited in claim 3 and the examiner
has not reasonably established how Pall would have suggested
formation of a porous member with pores having a mean diameter on
the order of 10 microns together with restricted passages of a
smaller size communicating therewith as required by claim 3.
With respect to method claim 7, we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner that Pall reasonably suggests the
recited method including the steps of forming a surface layer
comprised of fine particles on the outer surface of a porous
member having internal pores via impregnation and heat treating
the layer so as to form restricted passages. See page 2, line 11
through page 5, line 11, page 6, lines 3-14, page 7, line 16
through page 8, line 18 and page 17, line 3 through page 18, line
22 of Pall.
Appellants seemingly base their argument against the
examiner’s rejection of claim 7 on the notion that the heat
treatment step of claim 7 somehow defines over the heat treatment
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007