Appeal 2007-3196
Application 10/461,774
Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a process for the
adsorption separation of substances in liquid media, and is representative of
the claims on appeal:
1. A process for the adsorption separation of substances in liquid
media, comprising the steps:
(a) providing an adsorber having a flat absorbent (5) which is
disposed fixed in position in housing (3) and has at least one adsorbing
surface which is designed for binding an adsorbate, the housing (3) having at
least one intake (1) and only one outlet (2) for liquid medium,
(b) equilibrating the adsorbent (5) with a liquid medium and
(c) contacting the flat adsorbent (5) in the housing (3) with the liquid
medium which comprises at least one adsorbate by applying a pressure
difference between intake (1) and outlet (2), the at least one adsorbate-
containing medium flowing only tangentially over the entire outer adsorbing
surface of the adsorbent (5).
The Examiner relies on the evidence in this reference:
Nussbaumer US 6,294,090 B1 Sep. 25, 2001
Appellants request review of the grounds of rejection advanced on
appeal (Br. 4): claims 1 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement (Answer 5);
and claims 1 through 14, 16, and 18 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Nussbaumer (id. 7).
Appellants argue the claims in each ground of rejection as a group
(Br. in entirety). Thus, we decide this appeal based on claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013