Appeal 2006-2816
Application 10/434,125
18) Mori teaches that adding ozone to raw water is effective in
removing color and foul odor and taste. (Mori, col. 4, ll. 15-17).
19) Mori teaches that water exiting the ozone-resistant
membrane may be filtered through activated carbon and a reverse
osmosis membrane. (Mori, col. 2, ll. 62-67).
20) Mori teaches that “[w]hen the activated carbon treatment is
conducted, it is important to control the ozone concentration of the
water filtered through the ozone-resistant membrane at a low
level” to prevent the activated carbons from reacting with ozone.
(Mori, col. 7, ll. 44-48).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have understood Appellant’s
original Specification and claims as disclosing a water filtration apparatus in
which water exiting the apparatus did not contain ozone?
The Examiner determined that there is no supporting disclosure in the
original Specification or claims for the claim 49 recitation “wherein said
disinfectant is absent of the purified water when said purified water exits
said apparatus.” (Answer 3). Appellant maintains that the limitation “is
supported and can be readily inferred” from page 12 of the Specification
which states, inter alia, that the ultra-micro-filtration membrane lowers the
concentration of the remaining ozone in the water. (Br. 14). Appellant
asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a reduction
in ozone concentration would continue from this point on until the water
exits the apparatus. (Br. 14). As pointed out by the Examiner, lowering the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013