Appeal No. 1997-0844
Application No. 08/269,979
We also agree with the examiner’s analysis that claim 28
contains a product-by-process format, where component (b) of
claim 28 is recited in the same format as claim 18 on appeal
(Answer, pages 4-6). The product claimed in claim 28 is a
composite water which is a mixture of the process water of
claim 18 and an acidic process water derived from wet-
processing phosphate manufacturing (see claim 28 and the
Brief, page 6, last paragraph). The examiner has applied the
same rationale to claim 28 as used with claim 18, stating that
“[a]cidic water is not distinguishable depending on where it
comes from, absent evidence to the contrary.” (Answer, page
6). The examiner has shown, from the evidence in Zibrida,
that the effluent product of Zibrida (col. 4, ll. 42-46, cited
at page 6 of the Answer), would have reasonably appeared to be
either identical or only slightly different from the product
claimed in claim 28. The effluent product of Zibrida is
either basic from the second stage neutralization or, if
desired for discharge into the environment, at a pH of about 6
to about 8.5, i.e., slightly basic to acidic (Zibrida, col. 3,
ll. 15-20; col. 4, ll. 42-46). The product of claim 28 is a
mixture of essentially neutral process water (b) and a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007