Appeal 2007-3196
Application 10/461,774
were in possession of the invention to which they retreat at the time the
Application was filed, even if Appellants thus claim less than that which is
disclosed in their specification. See, e.g., In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1017-19, 194 USPQ 187, 195-96 (CCPA 1977); Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262-
64, 191 USPQ at 96-97.
The limitation specifying “flowing only tangentially” is a different
matter. We agree with the Examiner that the disclosure in the Specification
only describes medium flow “between the adsorbent layers [of a flat
absorbent] through which [the] flow can pass tangentially” and “particle-
containing fluid is passed along tangentially to the membrane,” and not that
the adsorbate containing medium flows “only tangentially” along the
adsorbing surface as claimed. Specification 17:¶0048 and 20:¶¶0055-0056;
Answer 5 and 10. As the Examiner points out, other disclosures in the
Specification describe flat adsorbent materials and processing conditions
which result in adsorbate-containing medium flow into or through the
adsorbing surface of the flat adsorbent material. See Answer 6 and 10-11,
and citations to the Specification therein. We are not convinced otherwise
by Appellants’ contentions with respect to the flat adsorbent material used in
Examples 1-4 because Appellants do not establish that such material restricts
flow to “only tangentially.” Br. 5; Reply Br. 4-5.
Accordingly, we determine the Examiner has established that prima
facie, as a matter of fact, one of ordinary skill in this art would not recognize
from the written description in the Specification that Appellants were in
possession of the claimed process and apparatus wherein “the at least one
adsorbate-containing medium flowing only tangentially over the entire outer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013