Ex parte GOODMAN et al. - Page 2




                Appeal No. 96-0920                                                                                                      
                Application 08/186,343                                                                                                  
                                                         THE INVENTION                                                                  

                        Appellants' invention is directed to a method of removing selenium, including selenium oxide                    

                from a waste solution by reducing selenium oxide with carbohydrazide to elemental selenium.                             

                                                           THE CLAIMS                                                                   

                        Claim 2 is illustrative of appellants' invention and is reproduced below.                                       

                        2.  A method of removing selenium from a waste solution including selenium oxide comprising                     
                reducing the selenium oxide with carbohydrazide, thereby precipitating elemental selenium.                              


                                                THE REFERENCES OF RECORD                                                                

                        As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references.                                  

                Vaaler                                  2,835,558                       May 20, 1958                                    
                Elfline                                 4,678,584                       July    7, 1987                                 
                Marcantonio                             4,915,928                       Apr. 10, 1990                                   
                Bossler et al. (Bossler)        5,108,624                       Apr. 28, 1992                                           


                                                        THE REJECTIONS                                                                  

                        Claims 2, 4 through 8, 12 through 15, and 17 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                          

                § 103 as being unpatentable over Elfline in view of Bossler.                                                            

                        Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elfline in view of                     

                Bossler as applied to claims 2, and further in view of Vaaler.                                                          




                allowable.  Hence the claims remaining for decision are 2 through 8 and 12 through 20.                                  
                                                                   2                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007