Appeal No. 2003-0746
Application No. 09/898,437
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the prior art cited by the examiner.
Appellant submits that we misconstrued the appealed claims
in finding that they do not specify that the inorganic colloid
and organic polymer perform a precipitation function. To support
this argument, appellant notes that claim 1 calls for adding
one or more metal ions, an anionic inorganic colloid and
inorganic polymer to produce a flocculated mass. Appellant
concludes that “[c]ontrary to the Board’s reasoning, both claims
require the limitation of producing flocculated mass by addition
of at least one polymer flocculants [sic, flocculant] to perform
a precipitation function” (page 2 of request, 2nd paragraph).
However, by appellant’s own admission, we did not misconstrue the
claims in finding that the claims do not specify that the
inorganic colloid and organic polymer perform a precipitation
function. Manifestly, Allgulin, like appellant, employs
flocculants to produce a flocculated mass.
We also adhere to our opinion that Chung is analogous
art. It is our view that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that the treatment process of Allgulin
encompasses aqueous streams of the type disclosed by Chung” [page
6 of decision, 1st paragraph). Moreover, as noted at page 5 our
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007