Appeal No. 2002-0467
Application No. 08/824,153
OPINION
The examiner finds that Schucker discloses separating
components of a mixture by perstration involving a nonporous
membrane, using supercritical fluid in both the feed inlet and the
sweep stream, recovering the supercritical fluid from the permeate
and concentrate, adjusting temperature and pressure of the
recovered fluid to supercritical conditions, and recycling the
fluid back to the process (Answer, renumbered page 4).
To support a rejection based on section 102(b), the examiner
must show that a prior art reference describes, either explicitly
or inherently, every limitation of the claims. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). All of the
claims on appeal specifically exclude the recycle of at least one
fluid to the same side of the process (e.g., see claim 31, “wherein
at least one of said first fluid and said second fluid is fresh to
and cannot be recycled to the same side of said process”).2 The
examiner reasons that the Schucker process initially provides fresh
fluid to both sides of the membrane from sources 2 and SSCS (see
2As correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 10), a fluid
that is “fresh” to the process is a fluid that has not been in
contact with the same side of the nonporous membrane previously
(i.e., a “virgin” solvent, see the specification, page 5, ll. 25-
28; a fluid solvent that is “never returned to the side of first
use,” see page 12, ll. 20-22).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007