Appeal No. 2004-2241
Application No. 10/059,577
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner's rejections are not well-founded.
Accordingly, we will reverse the examiner's rejections for
essentially the reasons expressed in appellants' principal and
reply briefs.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection over
O'Dowd. O'Dowd, like appellants, is directed to a method for
producing thermodynamically free iodine. However, as
acknowledged by the examiner, O'Dowd does not employ the
presently claimed porous membrane but, rather, a solid barrier
through which the free iodine passes by dispersion. It is the
examiner's position that, although the term "porous" is not
equated with "permeable," "the porous membrane, as defined by the
applicant, encompasses the non-porous barrier taught by the
reference" (page 7 of Answer, first paragraph). The examiner
cites page 7 of appellants' specification for the proposition
that appellants "have covered every possible membrane and
membrane material with the only specific limitation being that
the pore size is less than 5 microns" (page 7 of Answer, second
paragraph). According to the examiner, "[o]ne of ordinary skill
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007