Appeal No. 2005-1777
Application No. 10/186,170
Examiner argues that dropping the bacteria level by repeatedly
treating the fluid is indeed taught by LeBlanc (col. 16, line 57
through the entire col. 17). We agree and observe that this
portion of LeBlanc also describes that by each cycle of sending
the fluid through the treatment, the level of bacteria further
drops which indicates gradual removal of contaminants with
repeatedly cycling the treatment. Based on a comparison of the
two arguments and reviewing the references, we remain unconvinced
by Appellants’ arguments that the limitations of claim 5 as well
as the other independent claims are absent in the combination of
LeBlanc, Schonberg and Wakalopulos. Therefore, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5-15 and 17-25.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007