Ex Parte Schlegel et al - Page 13

                Appeal 2007-4101                                                                               
                Application 09/962,972                                                                         
                      one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was                           
                      made to provide the fluid treatment system of Klabunde with                              
                      the cartridge housing of Wilkins, in order to facilitate handling                        
                      of the treatment material in this primary reference system. Also,                        
                      it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at                        
                      the time the invention was made to employ a membrane having                              
                      the recited pore diameter (claims 6 and 12) in the thus modified                         
                      primary reference system, in order to ensure that an appropriate                         
                      amount of fluid is allowed to pass through this membrane.                                
                The Appellants rely on the same arguments and evidence discussed above to                      
                rebut the Examiner’s rejection set forth above (Br. 14-15).  Accordingly,                      
                based on the Factual Findings set forth in the Answer and above, we also                       
                determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor                      
                of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1 through 9 and 12                      
                through 14 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                              
                      As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 10                    
                through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner has relied on the                            
                combined disclosure of Klabunde, Price, and Sylva.  The disclosures of                         
                Klabunde and Prices are discussed above.  The Examiner has acknowledged                        
                that they do not mention employing the claimed hydrophilic membrane                            
                (Answer 4).                                                                                    
                      To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner has relied on Sylva to show                      
                that filtering a liquid through hydrophilic membrane is well known (id. and                    
                Sylvia, col. 2, ll. 7-16).  According to the Examiner (Answer 4-5):                            

                      [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art                         
                      at the time the invention was made to substitute the hydrophilic                         
                      membrane of Sylva for the filtering member (i.e. 7 or 11 of                              
                      Price) of the modified primary reference, since this hydrophilic                         
                      membrane is capable of filtering a liquid in substantially the                           
                      same manner as the filtering member of the modified                                      

                                                      13                                                       

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013