Appeal No. 2000-0954 Page 4
Application No. 08/972,206
presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at
the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016,
173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1 to 3
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Woods in view of
Castrantas.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A method of cleaning poultry manure from support
surfaces of an egg-laying installation which comprises
contacting the manure with an aqueous solution obtained
by combining water and one or more compounds selected
from alkali metal polyphosphates, organo-phosphonates,
alkali metal salts of nitriloacetic acid and alkali metal
salts of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that to use the
cleaning solution of Castrantas with the bath of Woods would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art wishing to ensure
that all support surfaces were as sanitary as possible.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007