Appeal No. 2005-1777
Application No. 10/186,170
Claims 1-15 and 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over LeBlanc, Schonberg and
Wakalopulos.2
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
Appellants argue that LeBlanc creates a turbulence in the
flow of fluids that are exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation
(brief, page 9). Appellants further assert that neither of the
references discloses “a closed loop system” for reducing bacteria
levels in a machining fluid, as required by the claims in the
form of a pump which pumps the fluid and gradually removes the
contaminants (brief, page 10). Appellants further question the
Examiner’s reason for combining the references to use other types
2 Although the claims appear to be rejected based on the same ground of
rejection, the Examiner has stated the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of the
claims as follow:
claims 1, 2, 10, 15 and 21-25 over LeBlanc, Schonberg and Wakalopulos,
and
claims 3-9, 11-14 and 17-20 over Schonberg, Wakalopulos and LeBlanc.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007