Appeal 2006-3315
Application 10/309,321
lines 20-23); and that the state of the art thickness for the microfilter of
0.2 μm pore size is 10-20 μm (column 1[,] lines 30-50)” (Answer 11, first
para.).
Concerning the claimed porosity for the separation layer, Appellants
assert that “it is well settled that it is improper for the Examiner to assert that
an otherwise undisclosed feature is inherently present in an effort to support
a rejection based on obviousness under § 103(a)” (principal Br. 20, last
para.). However, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s reasonable
explanation directed to Goldsmith’s disclosure of a separation layer which
rejects 0.49 μm latex particles.
Appellants also maintain that “there is no disclosure or suggestion in
Goldsmith that the thickness of the ‘separation layer’ is in any way a result
effective parameter in the context of Goldsmith’s structure that would even
need to be further ‘optimized’ through routine experimentation (principal
Br. 21, last para.). However, since Goldsmith is silent with respect to the
thickness of the separation layer, we find it quite reasonable that one of
ordinary skill in the art would look to other teachings in the relevant art,
such as Ciora’s, to determine the appropriate thickness of the separation
layer. We note that with respect to the § 103 rejections of the appealed
claims over Goldsmith as a primary reference, Appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 3 under § 102/§ 103 over Ciora is reversed, as are the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013