1 Obviousness
2 The Examiner rejected the claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
3 § 103(a) because in the Examiner’s view the subject matter claimed would
4 have been obvious.
5 In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner relied on a
6 combination of Mahendran and Brun.
7 In light of the binding precedent cited above, we are of the opinion
8 that the claimed subject would have been prima facie obvious over
9 Mahendran alone and therefore affirm.
10 What is factually manifest in this case is at least the following.
11 (1) The separation membranes of both Appellants and
12 Mahendran appear to have a similar appearance. Compare (1) Appellants’
13 Fig. 3 [reproduced above] with (2) Fig. 2 of Mahendran:
14
15 Mahendran Fig. 2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013