Appeal 2006-2350
Application 10/444,104
Obviousness over Uchino 978
We now turn to the rejection of claims 19, 20, and 23-38 as obvious
over Uchino 978. Appellants separately argue several groups of claims
under separate headings. We will select one claim from each group and
address each in turn.
Group A, Claims 19, 20, 23, and 25
We select claim 19 to represent the issues on appeal with respect to
claims 19, 20, 23, and 25.
There is no dispute that Uchino 978 suggests a method of polishing
glass wherein the polishing compound is a slurry containing abrasive
particles as claimed and two additives, an anti-solidification agent, and a
dispersant (Uchino 978 ¶ 12, ll. 1-5). There is further no dispute that Uchino
978 suggests using polyacrylate salts as a dispersant (Uchino ¶ 22-23). As
found by the Examiner, Uchino 978 discloses, among others, sodium
alginate and calcium-containing compounds such as calcium sulfate as
useful anti-solidification agents (Answer 3; see also Uchino 978 ¶ 15).
Calcium sulfate is one of the calcium compounds recited in claim 19, i.e.,
CaSO4. The Examiner acknowledges that Uchino 978 does not specifically
disclose the use of sodium alginate and calcium sulfate together, but
concludes that such use together would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art because the two compounds are taught as useful for the same
purpose, i.e., for anti-solidification (Answer 3). The Examiner cites In re
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) in
support.
As stated in In re Kerkhoven, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine
two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013