Appeal 2007-1768
Application 10/377,647
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Smith US 5,403,479 Apr. 4, 1995
Del Vecchio US 6,331,251 B1 Dec. 18, 2001
The Examiner entered the following final rejections:
I. Claims 16-25, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Smith.
II. Claims 16-25, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Del Vecchio and Smith.
DISCUSSION1
I. Claims 16-25, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Smith.
For this rejection, the issue is as follows:
Has the Examiner reasonably determined that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to perform a method for
cleaning one or more filtering membranes normally immersed in a tank,
including flowing a chemical cleaner in pulses through the membranes while
the tank water is being drained or is below the level of the membranes,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103? On this record, we answer this
question in the affirmative.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
1 We will limit our discussion to claim 16, the only independent claim
presented in the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013