Appeal No. 2002-0952
Application No. 08/929,108
processing. As such, courts have held that those in
the art are motivated in the art to convert batch
processes to continuous process by well known means.
In re Korpi, 73 U.S.P.Q. 229 (1947). It is therefore
considered that those in the art would find it obvious
to continuously filter by using the well known means
known in the cited prior art. Lastly, it is noted
that the claimed steps are not required to occur in
the order in which they are recited. (Answer, page 6.)
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis and
conclusion. Appealed claim 45 expressly requires steps a)
through j) to be performed and repeated “in the same filtration
run.” In this regard, the present specification makes it clear
to one skilled in the relevant art that the phrase “during the
filtration” or “same filtration run” refers to a single
filtration run and not a series of discrete filtration runs
performed continuously. (Page 6, line 24 to page 8, line 14;
page 12, line 9 to page 15, line 18.) Although Daoud states
that it is possible to clean the filters with a detergent (acid
or alkali) in between brewing runs (column 3, lines 38-41), the
examiner has not identified any teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to perform such cleaning in combination with
back flushing in the same filtration run.
For these reasons, we hold that the examiner has not made
out a prima facie case of obviousness within the meaning of 35
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007