Appeal No. 2002-0467
Application No. 08/824,153
present sufficient factual support for the rejection under section
102(b). Therefore, we cannot sustain this rejection.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection under section 103(a),
the examiner states that
Separating first and second fluids from the retentate and
permeate respectively, obtaining a fluid “free of retentate”
and recycling the fluid back to the feed side of the membrane
is disclosed, therefore, the use of a fluid free of
contaminants is suggested for the feed side of the membrane.
The separated supercritical fluid, e.g. CO2 [sic], subjected
to feed conditions and free of retentate can be considered
equivalent to fresh fluid for the intended purpose, since it
does not contain contaminants. [Answer, renumbered page 5].
As correctly argued by appellant (Reply Brief, pages 3-5), the
examiner has admitted that Schucker “fails to exclude the reuse or
recycling of fluids” (Answer, renumbered page 6, l. 10). As
discussed above, a limitation explicitly recited in the claims on
appeal prohibits recycle to the same side of the process for at
least one solvent fluid. The examiner has failed to present any
convincing evidence or reasoning to support the position quoted
above that the separated supercritical fluids of Schucker,
disclosed as free of retentate or permeate, are “free of
contaminants” and therefore can be considered “equivalent” to fresh
fluids as defined and claimed by appellant. In appropriate
circumstances, a single prior art reference can render a claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007