Appeal No. 1995-3349 Page 7
Application No. 08/066,994
purposes and have been found to enhance removal of foreign
matter that is attached to a workpiece by oil. Example 2 of
the specification and Figure 3 substantiate appellant's
argument regarding the discovery of a deaeration level
operating range that engenders results that would not have been
expected from the prior art teachings on this record. In this
regard, we note that Figure 3 indicates that better cleaning of
oil attached matter would result at deaeration levels
representing relatively higher dissolved oxygen contents, which
is at odds with the applied references' teachings. We observe
that the examiner's rebuttal argument indicating that the
applied references teach removing "substantially all gas"
(answer, page 6) does not refute the above-noted position of
appellant. On this record, we are constrained to agree with
appellant's viewpoint.
Additionally, with regard to separately argued claim 7, it
is our opinion that the examiner has not adequately explained
how the applied references would have reasonably suggested the
sequential use of two tanks containing cleaning solutions of
different dissolved oxygen contents in cleaning a workpiece.
The examiner's mere notation that Shibano discloses multiple
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007