Appeal 2006-2816
Application 10/434,125
a fourth filter which lower said inactivated unwanted particles and/or
substances from said water source from said third filter.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Mausgrover US 5,427,693 Jun. 27, 1995
Gastman US 5,711,887 Jan. 27, 1998
Conway US 6,348,155 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Mori US 6,464,877 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 49-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.1
2. Claims 13, 23-28, 31, 32, 36, 38-50, 52-62, 64, and 65 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gastman in view of Conway and
Mori.
3. Claims 37, 51, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gastman in view of Conway and Mori as applied to claims 13, 36, and
49 and further in view of Mausgrover.
ISSUES
I. The Examiner contends that the claim 49 recitation “wherein
said disinfectant is absent of the purified water when said purified water
exits said apparatus” is not supported by the original Specification and
claims. Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that disinfectant is absent when the purified water exits the
1 The rejection of claim 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been
withdrawn. (Answer 7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013