Appeal 2006-2492
Application 09/916,247
II. Claims 26-28, 31, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
(e) as anticipated by Del Vecchio.2
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that Del Vecchio describes a process of
filtering water containing solids that includes backwashing the membrane at
least once a week with a cleaning fluid (Answer 8). The Examiner contends
that Del Vecchio describes the frequency of cleaning cycles of at least one
week in column 12 of the reference. Specifically, the reference states "such
‘deep cleaning’ may be advantageously performed once per month of
normal operation or at more or less frequent intervals depending on the
needs of the system and the rate at which a bio-film is generated on the
fibers." (Col. 12, ll. 20-24).
The issue before us is whether the Examiner has properly determined
that the Del Vecchio reference teaches or describes the claimed subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Specifically, the issue is whether the
Examiner has properly determined that Del Vecchio describes the cleaning
frequency of at least one week as specified in claim 26? We answer this
question in the negative.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326-27, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Robertson 169 F.3d at
745, 49 USPQ2d at 1950.
2 We will limit our discussion to claim 26, the only independent claim presented in the rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013