Appeal No. 2006-2023 Page 8
Application No. 10/650,785
publication date of 5 September 2002, is not available as prior art. Appellants point out
that “[t]he specification does not teach that the simultaneous separation and membrane
filtration occurs anywhere else other than at or in the process tank. Specifically, it does
not teach that the mixed water and resin are taken from the process tank together and
then separated from each other through a membrane filter downstream from the
process tank” (original emphasis) (Reply, p. 3, ¶ 1). Furthermore, in response to the
examiner’s use of the Collier, Jowett and Anselme patents to construe the limitation at
issue, appellants argue that it is not logical to rely upon the teachings of other patents
rather than upon appellants’ own specification. Instead, “[t]he critical language in
Appellants’ specification must be interpreted in the context of Appellants’ specification,
not some other patent specification describing some other process,” particularly when
“the disputed teachings are novel as in the case herein” (original emphasis) (Reply, p.
4, ¶ 3). Therefore, according to appellants, claims 1-26 are entitled to the 8 September
1995 filing date of the ‘044 application.
D. Analysis
1. Group I (Claims 1-16)
Claim 1 is representative of Group I. It reads as follows:
1. A method for treating drinking water comprising:
a) providing raw water to a process tank;
b) adding an ion-exchange resin to the process tank to form a
water/ion-exchange resin mixture;
c) removing treated water from the process tank through the
membrane filter; and
d) regenerating the ion-exchange resin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007