Appeal No. 1997-0448
Application No. 08/327,980
examiner has failed to address why various aqueous fractions in Barry should be combined at particular
points in the process. Furthermore, Chiola describes modifying prior art processes where molybdenite
ore is processed to ammonium molybdate using a one-component ammonium hydroxide process to
produce the ammonium molybdate (col. 1, line 68 - col. 2, line 2), similar to those described by Barry
and Vertes, with a two-component solvent extraction process (col. 2, lines 67-72) where the feed
solution is first contacted with an organic extraction solvent containing a tertiary amine and then
contacting the molybdenum-pregnant organic solution with an ammonium solution (col. 3, lines 9-20).
The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d 115, 117,
10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398-99 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness as to claims 1-7 and 10-19 over Barry in view of Vertes and Chiola.
II. Rejection of claims 20-21 as obvious over Barry in view of Vertes and Chiola as applied to
claims 1-7 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Sohn.
Sohn discloses reacting fine powders of molybdenite and lime (CaO) with steam (i.e., water
vapor) to produce calcium molybdate and hydrogen. 18
18See Sohn, col. 9, lines 41-60.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007