Appeal No. 1997-1732
Application No. 08/236,895
appellants’ contention that Nelson’s “steam affects only a
temporary reduction in the viscosity of the liquid . . . [and]
does not remain in the process-waste liquid maintaining its
flowability and preventing it from coalescing as does the
second surrogate solvent claimed” (brief, page 11).
For a number of reasons, this contention does not
persuade us of error on the examiner’s part in maintaining her
rejection.
In the first place, the contention is not well founded.
That is, the viscosity reduction taught by Nelson is not
temporary and the steam remains in the liquid being processed
in the sense that patentee’s method including the steam-liquid
mixture addition step constitutes an on-going operation.
Indeed, Nelson’s explicit disclosure of reducing viscosity and
rendering the liquid more flowable (see line 16 in column 4)
directly controverts the appellants’ contentions. Finally,
even if the conditions mentioned by the appellants were
temporary, we find nothing and the appellants point to nothing
in the claims under rejection which excludes the maintenance
of “flowability” (claim 21) or the prevention of “coalescing”
(claim 26) for a limited (i.e., temporary) amount of time.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007