Appeal No. 2006-1611
Application No. 10/669,771
skill in the art as such fine screening is optional, but not
required. Consequently, we find that the appealed claims
encompass the optional step of fine screening and, therefore, do
not distinguish over the process described by Nebolsine.
Turning to the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 6, 7,
9-14, and 16-23, we fully concur with the examiner's legal
conclusion that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to backwash
the filter bed of Nebolsine in the manner taught by Maxson, in
order to thoroughly remove filtered contaminants from this
primary reference filter, thereby allowing it to be reused"
(page 3 of Answer, last sentence). Appellants maintain that the
flow rates, time duration and frequency disclosed by Maxson "are
a generalized background explanation of a backwashing sequence"
(page 11 of principal brief, second paragraph). However, the
fact that Maxson discusses air-water, air, and water backwash
cycles at the claimed flow rates and duration of time and
frequency in the background section of the patent does not
undermine the obviousness of employing such backwash conditions
in the process of Nebolsine. We note that appellants' argument
against the § 103 rejection in the Reply Brief simply entails
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007