Appeal 2007-1768
Application 10/377,647
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103? On this record, we answer this
question in the affirmative.
The Examiner found that Del Vecchio describes a method of cleaning
submerged membranes comprising stopping permeation, draining the tank
and subsequently flowing a chemical cleaner in pulses through the
membrane in a reverse direction to the permeation flow (Answer 7). The
Examiner found that Del Vecchio suggests the frequency of cleaning cycles
of at least one week. Specifically, Del Vecchio states “[s]uch ‘deep
cleaning’ may be advantageously performed once per month of normal
operation or at more or less frequent intervals depending on the needs of the
system and the rate at which a bio-film is generated on the fibers” (col. 12,
ll. 20-24). The Examiner recognized that Del Vecchio does not teach the
cleaning solution specified in the claimed invention. However, the
Examiner relied upon Smith for describing NaOCl as a suitable cleaning
solution (Answer 7). The Examiner also relied upon Smith for describing
the characteristics of the pulse, such as pressure and duration (Answer 7-8).
Appellants contend that Del Vecchio describes deep cleaning which
involves a contact time that is preferably several hours long and is contrary
to parts (e) and (f) of claim 16 (Br. 6). Appellants’ contention is not
persuasive. The claimed invention does not set limits on the duration of the
cleaning cycle that would exclude the teachings of Del Vecchio.
Appellants’ contentions regarding the remaining claims have been
considered and are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the
Answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013