Appeal No. 1996-2253 Page 5
Application No. 08/199,907
There is also no suggestion in the prior art relied on by
the examiner of including a dilution step in the process of
the reference. In the claimed process, a master batch
solution is formed by dissolving a chromium salt and a base in
water to form a first solution. The master batch is then
diluted with water and heated. A solid phyllosilicate clay is
added to the heated diluted solution. The Pinnavaia
reference, on the other hand, teaches adding water to clay to
form a slurry. The slurry is added to an undiluted chromium
salt-base solution. There is no intermediate step of diluting
or heating a diluted solution. Or, put in another way, there
is no master batch that is diluted and heated before clay
addition. The examiner tries to explain away this difference
by stating that “the mere step of diluting the solution before
further heating (aging) is considered to be an obvious matter
of process choice, absent a showing of new or nonobvious
results.” (Answer, page 4, lines 6-9).
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to a process claim, the examiner must establish that
the prior art suggests doing what appellant has done. Here,
there is no suggestion of including a step of diluting a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007