Appeal 2007-1768
Application 10/377,647
skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
The Examiner found that Smith suggests a process of filtering water
containing solids that includes backwashing the membrane at least once a
week with a cleaning fluid of selected concentration (Answer 4). The
Examiner found that draining the tank during the cleaning process was
known to persons of ordinary skill in the art (Answer 5). In support of his
position, the Examiner cites the Background of the Invention section of the
Smith reference. Smith describes flowing a chemical cleaner through the
pores in the membrane in pulse cleaning cycles (col. 11, ll. 29-47; and col.
17, ll. 50-56). Smith discloses that NaOCl is a suitable cleaning solution for
cleaning filtering membranes (col. 13, ll. 33-41). The Examiner contends
that the concentration of NaOCl in the cleaning solution and the duration of
all cleaning events are result effective variables that depend upon the degree
of fouling of the membrane and the quality of the water being treated by the
membrane (Answer 5-6).
Appellants contend that the prior art discussed in the Smith reference
does not describe part (c) and parts (e) or (f) of claim 16 (Br. 3). Appellants
contend that Smith’s process does not describe parts (b) and (c) of claim 16
(Br. 4). Appellants further contend that parts (e) and (f) of claim 16 are not
merely the results of optimizing result effective variables in a known process
(Br. 4).
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive. The Examiner in the
discussion of the rejection has identified the teachings from both the
description of the Smith invention and the Background of the Invention
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013