Appeal No. 1998-1149
Application No. 08/406,946
We cannot sustain, however, the corresponding rejection
of independent claim 2 and of claims 4 and 5 which depend
therefrom. This is because, as the appellants have correctly
pointed out, the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion of the appealed claim 2 step wherein organic
solvent is contacted with the aqueous solution from the
diffusive dialysis treatment to extract the alkali ions from
the solvent into the aqueous phase to regenerate the organic
solvent. Simply put, the examiner’s obviousness conclusion
regarding this step is not supported by any probative
evidence. This lack of evidentiary support compels us to
disagree with the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness vis-a’-
vis the step under consideration.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007