Appeal No. 2002-0467
Application No. 08/824,153
Fig. 1), and teaches use of fresh fluid from these sources as make
up fluid in the recycling process, and therefore the examiner
concludes that “the use of fresh fluid or fluid that has not been
in contact with the same side of the membrane is disclosed as
alternative [sic] in ‘224, (Fig. 1).” Answer, renumbered page 5.
We do not agree.
The initial conditions of the Schucker process do not
anticipate the claimed process since these initial conditions do
not show all of the limitations present in the claims on appeal,
nor do these initial conditions suggest that initial conditions be
preserved throughout the process. Contrary to the examiner’s
reasoning, Schucker does not disclose, teach or suggest that the
fresh fluids initially used are “alternatives” to the recycled
fluids taught as necessary to the process. Similarly, the recycle
of used fluid in combination with fresh make up fluid does not
anticipate the claimed limitation that at least one fluid cannot be
recycled to the same side of the process, nor can any teaching be
found that the fresh make up fluid is an “alternative” to the
recycled fluid. See Schucker, Figures 1 and 2, and col. 3, ll. 11-
12; ll. 27-28; col. 7, ll. 7-10; ll. 19-21; ll. 39-43; and ll. 53-
57. Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has failed to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007