Appeal 2007-1768
Application 10/377,647
portion of the Smith reference. The Examiner asserts that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the draining
of the tank cleaning technique with the pulse cleaning technique described in
Smith. Appellants’ contentions do not address the combination as provided
by the Examiner. We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that the pulse cleaning techniques of Smith could
have been utilized for cleaning the pores of a membrane in a tank that had
been drained for cleaning and subsequently refilled with a cleaning fluid.
Regarding parts (e) and (f) of claim 16, we also agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that the frequency of the cleaning events and the concentration of the
cleaning fluid would depend upon the fouling of the membrane. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill to determine the
appropriate frequency of cleaning a fouled membrane and an appropriate
concentration of a cleaning solution suitable for cleaning a membrane. See
In re Bozek, supra.
II. Claims 16-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Del Vecchio and 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013