Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
169676 describes the subject matter required by independent claim 1
(Answer 4-8). However, as stated above, it is our determination that the
Examiner has not established that JP 11-169676 describes a process
corresponding to the appealed claim 1 process on this record. Thus, this
common deficiency in the Examiner’s application of JP 11-169676 infects
each of the separate obviousness Rejections B-G with reversible error. Also,
the Examiner has not articulated a rationale that fairly explains why the
teachings of the applied secondary references as further utilized in
Rejections B and D-G would be fairly combinable with the assembly of a
device of the type that JP 11-169676 is concerned with forming in a manner
so as to modify the JP 11-169676 assembly method to include a step of
winding a hollow fiber fabric around a center tube as required by the
appealed claims rejected in Rejections B and D-G (Reply Br. 13). It follows
that, on this record, we shall reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections
B-G, which rejections employ JP 11-169676 as a primary reference.
Rejection H
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mancusi in view of Bikson. Appellants argue the
claims as a group. Hence, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on
which we decide this appeal as to this ground of rejection.
The Examiner has determined that:
Mancusi et al. ('832) teach the basic claimed process of
making a hollow fiber membrane separation device (contactor)
including, providing a core, wrapping a hollow fiber fabric onto
said core (winding), potting the fabric and the core together to
form an assembly (first potting), placing the assembly in a
housing (shell) and potting the assembly and the housing
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013