puzzle.”). See also, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040,
1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("As long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law
does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor.").
Appellant additionally argues that claims 36 and 49 are patentable
over the applied prior art because they recite features not present in Mori.
(Br. 24 and 25). These arguments are not persuasive since the rejection is
based on the combined teachings of the references. (See Answer 13-14).
Appellant’s Affidavit is likewise unpersuasive in overcoming the
Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness because it focuses on Mori,
and fails to address the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims (see Answer 13). For example, the affiant (i.e.,
Appellant) maintains that the apparatus of Mori cannot be modified to use
only ozone without undue experimentation. This argument does not address
the Examiner’s contention that it would have been obvious to have used an
ozone resistant membrane filter in the Gastman/Conway filtration system.
The affiant also states that he disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious to combine the components of the cited prior art
in the manner claimed, but does not refute the reasons relied on by the
Examiner to establish motivation to combine the reference teachings in the
manner claimed.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of 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 for essentially those reasons set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer. Because Appellant does not present any
additional substantive arguments in response to the rejection of claims 37,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013