Appeal No. 1997-0545
Application 08/224,063
(i) reacting an alkali metal silicate with an alkali metal hydroxide of the formula MOH, wherein
M is a alkali metal, in an aqueous environment to form a reaction product; and
(ii) casting the reaction product into a mold wherein the reaction product is formed and cast
without the addition of externally supplied heat and the reaction product solidifies without the use of
external cooling.
The appealed claims as represented by claim 922 are drawn to a process for forming a solid,
cast alkaline composition wherein the reaction of an alkali metal silicate with an alkali metal hydroxide in
an aqueous environment is conducted without the addition of externally supplied heat and the reaction
product is cast into a solid mold wherein it solidifies without the use of external cooling. According to
appellants, the claimed process encompassed by claim 92 “provides for the rapid manufacture of a solid
cast alkaline cleaning composition without melting of the cast composition” (specification, page 1).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Olson 4,933,102 Jun. 12, 1990
Schumann et al (Schumann)3 35 19353 Dec. 4, 1986
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:4
claims 92 through 96, 100 through 102 and 105 through 113 stand under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schumann;
claims 92 through 106 and 108 through 113 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Olson; and
claim 107 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of
Schumann.
2 Appellants state in their brief (page 5) that they “request that claims 92-113 be grouped together.”
Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 92 and 107. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(1995).
3 The examiner and appellants have referred to Schumann as “Henkel.” We refer in our decision to the
translation of Schumann prepared by Multilingual Communications Services, Inc., and submitted by
appellants in the information disclosure statement of June 7, 1991, filed in grandparent application
07/647,534 (Paper No. 3).
4 The examiner withdrew the ground of rejection of claim 103 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, in the advisory action of July 17, 1995 (Paper No. 28).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007