Appeal No. 1996-3990 Page 3
Application No. 08/145,239
Admitted prior art in specification that hydroxyaryloximes 1
are known copper extractants (Paper No. 7, page 2).
Claims 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Shanton.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that the examiner has
failed to establish that the applied references' teachings
would have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection.
The admitted prior art copper extractant relied upon by
the examiner does not even contemplate component B of the
composition and Shanton is directed to pressure sensitive
record material, not compositions useful for copper
1The examiner does not specifically identify that portion
of the subject specification which is being relied upon as
admitted prior art; however, appellants do not dispute the
examiner's assertion to the extent that "... hydoxyaryloximes
are known copper extractants" (brief, page 7). We observe
that an organic solvent solution of o-hydroxyaryloxime is
acknowledged as a known metal extractant at page 1, lines 6-15
of appellants' specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007