Appeal No. 1998-1568
Application No. 08/336,352
(a) formulating a strong oxidizing solution of
Caro's acid by mixing about 40 to 60 percent hydrogen
peroxide by volume with concentrated sulfuric acid
in the ratio of about 1 part hydrogen peroxide: 8 parts
sulfuric acid by volume to about 1 part hydrogen
peroxide: 20 parts sulfuric acid by volume; and
(b) storing said strong oxidizing solution in a
container having a space over said solution containing
one of a vacuum or a non-oxidizing atmosphere inert to
said oxidizing solution.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Jayawant 3,927,189 Dec. 16,
1975
Bardy et al. (Bardy) 3,931,396 Jan. 6,
1976
Haynes et al. (Haynes) 4,229,544 Oct. 21,
1980
Ota et al. (Ota) 4,334,610 Jun. 15,
1982
Appellants’ admission at pages 1 and 2 of the specification
(hereinafter referred to as “admitted prior art”).
Claims 1 through 4 and 7 through 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
the admitted prior art and either Jayawant, Bardy, Ota, or
Haynes.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007