Appeal 2007-2132
Application 09/761,041
The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Westermann US 4,166,141 Aug. 28, 1979
The admitted prior art described on pages 1-3 of the Specification.
All of the appealed claims are rejected under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. According to the
Examiner, “[t]here is no antecedent basis for the amended phrase ‘the main
flow’ found in the preamble of claim 10” (Answer 3).
All appealed claims are rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement with
respect to the claim 10 phrase “periodically regenerating fresh PVPP.”
More specifically, the Examiner points out that, “[w]hile the specification
refers to regenerating PVPP, there is no mention of ‘fresh PVPP’” (Answer
3).
All appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Westermann alone or in view of the admitted prior art.
Concerning the rejection based on Westermann alone, the Examiner believes
the claim 10 limitations relating to “the main flow” are satisfied by
Westermann “because the scope of the [quoted claim 10] phrase is . . .
broad” (Answer 4). As for the alternative rejection based on Westermann in
view of the admitted prior art, the Examiner concludes that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013