Initially, we consider the rejection of claim 1 through 5 over Chemical Abstracts
102:172028f. We reverse this rejection. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability,” whether on the grounds of anticipation or obviousness. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On
the record before us, the examiner relies upon an abstract to reject the claimed
subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
We find that Chemical Abstracts 102:172028f discloses wastewater treatment
by ozonization to completely remove nitrobenzene with no appreciable accumulation of
unsaturated intermediate products. The initial products are nitric acid, and maleic acid
or anhydride. The organic components may be subsequently oxidized to oxalic acid and
carbon dioxide. In our view, the disclosure of Chemical Abstracts 102:172028f is
sufficient to teach the virtual destruction of the aromatic nitro compounds as
required by claims by the claimed subject matter, but not “down to inorganic
components.”
The basic premise of the rejection is that Chemical Abstracts 102:172028f
teaches a process for degrading aromatic nitro compounds substantially as claimed.
See Answer, page 5. The examiner submits that the temperature range includes room
temperature, the pH range includes a neutral pH and an increase in pressure
increases the rate of oxidation. See Answer, pages 5 and 7. Moreover, the examiner
takes Official Notice that, “[i]t is well known in the art of water treatment that an
increase in temperature or pressure during the oxidation of organic contaminants in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007