Appeal 2007-4101
Application 09/962,972
primary reference, to produce substantially the same results.
Again, 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 (claim 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 again rely on the same arguments and evidence
discussed above in rebutting this rejection (Br. 15-16). 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 10 through 12 within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner has relied on the combined
disclosure of Klabunde, either Price or Wilkins, and either Nieweg or
Strand. The disclosures of Klabunde, Price and Wilkins are discussed
above. The Examiner has acknowledged that Klabunde, Price, and Wilkins
do not teach the claimed shape of housing (Answer 5).
To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner has relied on Nieweg or
Strand to show filters having a housing in the form of a truncated cone as
required by claim 15 (id). According to the Examiner (id.):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to construct the housing of
the modified primary reference in the shape of a truncated cone,
as suggested by Nieweg or Strand, in order to obtain the
advantages associated with such a geometric shape (e.g. less
channeling) for the system of this modified primary reference.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013