Appeal No. 94-4487
Application No. 08/006,021
solutions of CMI (column 2, line 36; column 3, lines 49 and 50;
column 4, line 18 and 46-60). We simply do not understand
appellant's argument that "Law differs from the invention in that
it does not teach water-soluble, non-chelated ferric salts as the
stabilizer" (page 5 of Brief). As for appellant's argument that
Law does not teach or suggest using the disclosed stabilizers for
dilute solutions, we note that Law expressly teaches that at high
levels of dilution of the isothiazolone the ratio of stabilizer
to isothiazolone can range from about 1:7 to about 50:1 (column
4, lines 52-56). Also, see column 5, lines 40 et seq..
As explained by the examiner, Miller also discloses the use
of ferric salts, such as ferric nitrate, to stabilize solutions
of 3-isothiazolones. While appellant contends that Miller I and
II teach the stabilization of concentrates, not dilute solutions,
the examiner has properly noted that the Miller references
provide no disclosure that ferric nitrate stabilizes only
concentrated solutions of isothiazolones. Indeed, the Miller
patents disclose that "the amount of metal nitrate or nitrite
needed to stabilize the solution will be partly dependent on the
solvent, the isothiazolone and its concentration . . ." (column
3, lines 33-36 of Miller II, emphasis added). We agree with the
examiner that based on the disclosures of the Miller patents one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007