concentration of ozone merely means that less ozone is present, not that it is
absent from the water. (Answer 7). Appellant has not provided any
evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a different
understanding of the referenced portion of the Specification.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 49-62 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
II. 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?
The Examiner relied on Gastman and Conway for a teaching of the
invention as claimed in independent claims 13, 36, and 49 with the
exception of a filter comprising ozone/disinfectant resistant means.2 The
Examiner relied on Mori for a teaching of Appellant’s claimed “filter which
comprises ozone resistant means and which lowers the turbidity level and
lowers said ozone in said water source” (claims 13 and 36) and claimed
“filter which comprises disinfectant resistant means and which lowers the
turbidity level and lowers said disinfectant in said water source” (claim 49).
The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to use Mori’s ozone-resistant
membrane filter in the Gastman/Conway water treatment apparatus to gain
the numerous advantages noted in Mori. (Answer 5 (citing Mori, col. 2, ll.
30-55) and Answer 10).
2 Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
“ozone resistant means” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (see Answer
4-5).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013