Appeal No. 1999-1810
Application 08/288,433
is a purification of the solution.
The appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to combine Filippone’s
purification process with Keating’s electrolysis process
(brief, pages 11-12). Because Filippone is directed toward
purifying an aqueous alkali metal chloride solution prior to
electrolysis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered Filippone’s disclosure in conjunction with
Keating’s disclosure directed toward electrolysis.
The appellant argues that given Filippone’s teaching that
excessive oxidation leading to the formation of IO is to be3-
avoided (col. 2, lines 9-12), one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have oxidized the iodine to periodate (brief,
pages 12 and 19). As discussed above, however, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led by Keating to
use Keating’s process to form barium periodate.
For the above reasons we conclude that the process
recited in the appellant’s claim 1 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejections of claim 1 over Keating in view of
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007