Appeal No. 2005-1777
Application No. 10/186,170
USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, as pointed out by the
Examiner, LeBlanc uses UV radiation as well as ionizing radiation
for removing bacteria and organic contaminants from industrial
fluids which taken together with Schonberg’s use of electron beam
for disinfecting liquids, provides for the claimed subject matter
recited in claim 1. Additionally, Wakalopulos provides for other
types of ionizing radiation, such as atmospheric plasma, for
sterilization (col. 2, lines 23-27) which provides for further
types of radiation that are available to the skilled artisan for
removing organic contaminants from fluids. Thus, we find that
the Examiner has provided sufficient evidentiary support for
combining the reference by relying on LeBlanc’s disclosure of
other contaminant-reducing methods and directing us to other
conventional radiation methods such as ionizing radiation (col.
9, lines 41-50). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
1 as well as claims 2-4, which are grouped by Appellants (brief,
page 7) as standing or falling together with claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over LeBlanc, Schonberg and Wakalopulos.
With respect to claim 5, Appellants argue that the recited
closed loop system that gradually reduces the bacteria levels as
the fluid is controlled and recirculated at a desired degree is
absent in the references (brief, page 13). In response, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007