Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to explain the desirability of
combining Mori with Gastman and Conway. (Br. 18). Appellant also argues
that Gastman teaches away from using Mori’s ozone-resistant membrane
filter. (Br. 20). Appellant bases these arguments on the contention that
because Gastman uses a UV chamber 64 after the ozone treatment stage to
destroy any remaining ozone, the use of Mori’s ozone-resistant membrane
filter in the Gastman/Conway apparatus would be superfluous. (Br. 19-20).
Although Gastman’s UV chamber 64 neutralizes ozone in the water,
Gastman teaches that water exiting the UV chamber is only “substantially
free” of ozone (FF 9) which means that the water may still contain some
amount of ozone. Gastman notes that any vessels and conduits that come
into contact with ozonated water should be made of materials which are
resistant to ozone oxidation. (FF 11 & 12). In Mori’s process, an
improvement in filtration flux through the ozone resistant membranes is
observed with even a small concentration of ozone. (FF 15 & 17). Mori
further teaches that a low level of ozone is preferred when an activated
carbon treatment is used as a final purification step (FF 20). Thus, we are in
agreement with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been discouraged from using Mori’s ozone resistant means in
Gastman’s filtration system. Rather, we find that the facts and reasons relied
on by the Examiner establish a reasonable basis for concluding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Mori’s ozone
resistant means in Gastman’s filtration system (see Answer 5 and 10). See
KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1732, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1390
(2007)(“It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013