Appeal No. 1996-1185
Application No. 08/063,985
to practice the invention.
We agree with appellants that Choy’s “silence” regarding
temperature conditions is not evidence of obviousness of the
herein specifically claimed process. In fact, it is our view
that one skilled in this art would have reasonably inferred
from Choy’s example 1 at column 7, lines 26-40 that the bleach
particles were sprayed with the 25 wt. % aqueous solution of
sodium sulfate at ambient conditions, absent any express
disclosures to the contrary. In this regard, Choy expressly
and rather precisely describes the drying temperature of this
example “at about 65E C. for about 1 min.” Thus, arguably,
the Choy reference suggests a prior art process wherein a
particulate starting material is at a temperature below the
“transition temperature,” i.e., 32.5EC, of the hydrate-forming
compound, sodium sulfate. However, we find no adequate
reason, suggestion, or motivation in Choy to modify the 4
4At column 6, lines 5-13, Choy incorporates by reference
U.S. Pat. No. 3,983,254 issued September 28, 1976 to Alterman,
copy attached. Alterman teaches at column 7, lines 18-22 that
“in some cases” the coating solution reservoir and pipe lines
are heated to prevent solidification of the coating material
in solution. There is no evidence of record that Choy’s
sodium sulfate solution presents the problem of in situ
equipment solidification, however.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007