Appeal 2007-2132
Application 09/761,041
separation device of the admitted prior art is a filter and the solid-liquid
separation device of Westermann is either a filter or a centrifuge. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007).
Significantly, the Appellant in his Brief does not contest the
Examiner’s rejection based on Westermann in view of the admitted prior art.
Indeed, the Brief discusses only the teachings of Westermann and does not
discuss at all the teachings of the admitted prior art. These circumstances
compel us to determine that the record of this appeal presents an unrebutted
prima facie case of obviousness. As a consequence, we hereby sustain the
§ 103 rejection of all appealed claims based on Westermann in view of the
admitted prior art.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
William J. Davis, Esq.
Legal Dept., Bldg. 10
INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
1361 Alps Road
Wayne, NJ 07470
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013