Appeal No. 2005-1777
Application No. 10/186,170
of treatment process in place of the UV radiation of LeBlanc or
to gradually reduce contaminants by fluid recirculation (brief,
pages 13-15). With respect to the other references, Appellants
argue that the examiner has relied on limited portions of the
references whereas Schonberg as a whole discloses using an
electron beam to convert toxic or nontoxic compounds in a gaseous
material or groundwater while Wakalopulos uses electron plasma
cloud for sterilizing medical equipment (brief, page 16).
The Examiner responds by pointing to portions of LeBlanc
(col. 9, lines 41-50) which describe other types of radiation
treatments for reducing contaminants in fluids such as ionizing
radiation as disclosed in Schonberg and Wakalopulos (answer,
pages 8 & 9). The Examiner further reasons that since control of
the pump and filtering modules is disclosed in LeBlanc (col. 15,
lines 41-44), the fluid is pumped and returned to the machine
reservoir (answer, page 10). Similarly, the Examiner asserts
that the use of a pump in LeBlanc indicates circulation of the
fluid while the argued limitation of “a closed loop recirculation
system” is actually absent in the claims (answer, page 11).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007