Ex parte CRONIN et al. - Page 2





          Appeal No. 95-2742                                                               
          Application 08/006,411                                                           


             1.  A process for treating contaminated aqueous hydrochloric acid to remove silicon-containing materials, the
          process comprising                                                               
                (I) contacting said hydrochloric acid with activated carbon for a time sufficient to allow any silicon-containing
                materials contained in said hydrochloric acid to adsorb on the activated carbon thereby treating said
                hydrochloric acid and the activated carbon having adsorbed silicon-containing materials thereon; and
                (II) separating the treated aqueous hydrochloric acid from the activated carbon.
             9.  Hydrochloric acid when treated by the process of claim 1.                 
             The appealed claims as represented by claim 1 are drawn to processes of treating aqueous hydrochloric acid which
          has been contaminated with silicon-containing materials with activated carbon and separating the treated hydrochloric
          acid from the activated carbon.  We note that appealed claims 3 through 8 further include the steps of refurbishing the
          activated carbon while appealed claims 9 through 11 are drawn to hydrochloric acid produced by the claimed processes.
             The references relied on by the examiner are:                                 
          Benzaria et al. (Benzaria)3,720,626            Mar. 13, 1973                            
          Vanlautem                     5,202,106            Apr. 13, 1993                 
          Blyum et al. (Blyum)3           1,183,454             Aug. 22, 1983                      
             (Soviet Union)                                                                
             The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second
          paragraph; appealed claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being                
          unpatentable over Blyum or Vanlautem, either one in view of the                  
          admitted stated of the art on page 1, et seq. of appellants’                     
          specification; and appealed claims 3 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. '                
          103 as being unpatentable over Blyum or Vanlautem, either one in                 
          view of the admitted stated of the art on page 1, et seq. of                     
          appellants’ specification, as applied to appealed claims 1 and 2,                
          further in view of Benzaria.  We affirm the decision of the                      

          the grounds of rejection (brief, page 3).                                        
          3 We have considered a translation of Blyum prepared for the                     
          PTO by Diplomatic Language Services, Inc., July, 1994, and attach                
          a copy thereof to our decision.                                                  

                                           - 2 -                                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007