1 B. Issues
2 There are two principal issues.
3 The first issue is whether appellants have established that the
4 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 as being anticipated
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Mahendran.
6 The second issue is whether Appellants have established that the
7 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 as being unpatentable
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Mahendran and Brun.
9 C. Findings of fact
10 The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by at least
11 a preponderance of the evidence. To the extent a finding is a conclusion of
12 law, it may be treated as such.
13 The invention on appeal relates to a separation membrane.
14 Specification, page 1, ¶ 0002; Fig. 3.
15
16 With reference to Fig. 3, the separation membrane 30 is composed of
17 a tubular braid support 31 made of woven yarn having a “lumen” (inner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013