Appeal No. 1998-2077
Application 08/553,324
sequence of the claimed subject matter, even if Z and Q are equivalent. We conclude that Lindberg’s
suggestion of the equivalency of ozone and chelating agents would not teach the person having ordinary
skill in the art to use ozone and chelating agents sequentially.
Based upon the above considerations, even if the examiner was correct in combining Backlund,
Lundgren, and Lindberg in the manner described supra, the requisite sequence of steps and the
concomitant omission of a washing stage between the ozone stage and the chelation stage would not be
taught and the process created would, in any event fall short of the invention defined by the claimed
subject matter, as the aforesaid claimed subject matter requires features that cannot be achieved by
combining the three references. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). Accordingly, the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007