apparatus because ozone concentration is continually lowered as the water
exits the ozone resistant means. The issue for us to decide is “Would one of
ordinary skill in the art have understood Appellant’s original Specification
and claims as describing a water filtration apparatus in which water exiting
the apparatus did not contain ozone?”
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
negative.
II. The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used Mori’s
ozone-resistant membrane filter in the Gastman/Conway water treatment
apparatus to achieve the invention as claimed. Appellant contends that the
Examiner has failed to explain the desirability of using Mori’s membrane
filter in the Gastman/Conway water treatment apparatus, since the filter
would be superfluous. The issue for us to decide is: “Has the Examiner
identified a reasonable basis in the prior art for using Mori’s membrane filter
in the Gastman/Conway water treatment apparatus?” If so, “Has Appellant
provided sufficient evidence to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie
showing of obviousness?”
For the reasons discussed below, we answer the first question in the
affirmative, and further determine that the Appellant has failed to overcome
the Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm as to all three grounds of rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013