Appeal No. 96-3906
Application No. 08/038,588
about 8."2
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
modify Austin's oxide remover solution by adding (1) sodium
citrate, per the teachings of Holder and King; and (2) sodium
xylene sulfonate, per the teachings of VanEenam (Examiner's
Answer, paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7). Further, the
examiner says, it would have been obvious to adjust the HLB of
Austin's nonionic surfactant in the range of about 3 to about
8 "to obtain optimum results" (Examiner's Answer, page 7,
first full paragraph). The examiner argues that a person
having ordinary
skill in the art, by modifying Austin's method in this way,
would have arrived at the instantly claimed method. The
argument lacks merit. Certainly, the prior art could be
modified in the manner proposed by the examiner. This can be
seen from a review of appellants' specification and claims.
However, merely because the prior art could be so modified
2Nonionic surfactants are often characterized in terms
of their HLB (hydrophile-lipophile balance) number. See Kirk-
Othmer, 22 Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 360-62 (3d ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1983) (copy enclosed with this
opinion).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007