Appeal No. 96-0920
Application 08/186,343
ordinary skill in the art to use the carbohydrazide reducing agent of Bossler in place of Elfline’s toxic
hydrazine reducing agent.
We next turn to consideration of claim 8, which additionally requires the reduction of ions which
interfere with the reduction of selenium oxide. We essentially agree with and incorporate the examiner's
position as set forth in the Answer, page 7. We add only the following brief comment for emphasis. The
examiner argued therein that the “skilled artisan would obviously take steps to eliminate, or at least
minimize, these interfering ions from the solution undergoing treatment in the primary reference process.”
Elfline clearly recognized the need to, “destroy certain interfering ions,” as a pretreatment step prior to
performance of his process. See column 4, lines 8 - 17. We conclude that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the levels of interfering ions by following the express suggestions
of Elfline.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2, 4 through 8, 12 through 15, and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Elfline in view of Bossler is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 3 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 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elfline in view
of Bossler as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Marcantonio is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007