Appeal No. 96-0126
Application 07/942,400
event, the appellants have stated that
?[t]he Examiner cites Konig-Lamer to add
corrosion inhibitors to the teachings of
Ma, and cites Seaman to add non-ionic
surfactants to the teachings of the other
two references? (Brief, page 8),
and only certain dependent claims require such features which
dependent claims the appellants have grouped as standing or
falling with independent claim 1 (e.g., see footnote 3,
supra).
As for claims 9 and 10, the processes defined thereby are
either taught or would have been suggested by Ma’s explicit
disclosure concerning de-icing and anti-icing. By way of
explanation, the repression recited in claim 9 would
necessarily occur with Ma’s composition since it corresponds
to the here claimed composition as explained previously.
Further, the claim 10 feature of additional de-icing using
less fluid would be practiced under a variety of circumstances
during the process of Ma. For example, this feature would be
practiced at the last stage of a single de-icing operation or
at a subsequent operation wherein a lesser quantity of de-
icing fluid would be used to remove a lesser quantity of ice.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007