Appeal 2006-2813
Application 10/168,887
the teaching of Blaney that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the membrane of Lawrence is the corrugated or checkered
structure of Blaney's membrane that increases the membrane surface and,
consequently, the rate of absorption. Moreover, Corbin further supports the
obviousness of employing a membrane material having the claimed actual
surface area relative to projected surface area. Manifestly, it can hardly be
gainsaid that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the
greater the surface area of the membrane the greater the rate of absorption.
Also, we note that Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's alternate
rationale that since Appellants' claims "do not recite any limitation on the
membrane material, one of ordinary skill in the art would also find
motivation to combine the teaching of the vacuum suction source of
Lawrence in the Blaney device for faster suction of oil spills in oil spill
clean-up with the Blaney device" (page 16 of Answer, first paragraph).
Appellants do not present separate substantive arguments against the
§ 103 rejection of claims 5, 11, 13-15, 18 and 21-26 over Corbin, nor for the
§ 103 rejection of claims 7-27 over Lawrence in view of Blaney and Corbin.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness for claims rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007