Appeal 2006-3315
Application 10/309,321
Br. 12, second para.). In response, the Examiner states that “there is no
obviousness rejection in this regard, because the reference anticipates
titania” (Answer 17, penultimate para.). However, for the reasons set forth
above, we find that Ciora does not anticipate claims 2 and 3, and the
Specification data is offered to rebut the obviousness rejection under
§ 103. The Examiner also states that “[t]he specification does not disclose
any data on performance of alumina with respect to bacteria removal to
support the argument that titania is superior to alumina for bacteria removal”
(Id.). However, Appellants correctly answer that “the Examiner’s position is
not responsive to the argument that was actually presented on page 12 of the
Brief on appeal, which is directed to the unexpected results showing that
titania provides improved fouling characteristics (not bacteria removal)
compared to that of alumina” (Reply Br. 8, first para.).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the § 102 and § 103 rejections of
claims 2 and 3 over Ciora.
We will also not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections based on Abe
as a primary reference. The appealed claims require that the separation layer
have a thickness in the range of 5 to 20 μm, and we agree with Appellants
that Abe fails to teach or suggest such a thickness for the separation layer.
Abe specifically discloses that the thin layer of the ceramic filter, which
corresponds to the claimed separation layer, has “a thickness of less than
2 microns” (col. 4, l. 27). In response to this disclosure of Abe, the
Examiner counters that “[e]ven if the reference is weak on the teaching of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013