Appeal 2006-3166
Application 09/843,582
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Andros US 5,844,030 Dec. 1, 1998
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
unpatentable over Andros.
Appellants contend that Andros does not disclose a brush that includes
a “complexing agent adapted to chemically bond to metal particles” as
recited by each of the claims on appeal (Br. 3). The Examiner contends that
Andros discloses a brush having a complexing agent for chemically bonding
metal particles (Answer 3-5).
We AFFIRM.
ISSUE
Whether Andros discloses a brush or scrubber having a “complexing
agent adapted to chemically bond to metal particles” as required by claims
14, 19, and 20.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants invented a scrubber brush or pad having a reactive surface
for contacting a substrate to remove metal particles therefrom (Specification
2: 7-25; 3: 27-29).
The reactive surface of the brush or scrubber may comprise a
complexing agent such as a chelating reagent (Specification 3: 30-31).
The complexing agent “reacts” with the metal particles to remove
them from the surface of the substrate (Specification 3: 30-33; 4: 1-2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013