obviousness] is not supported by the facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
2
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1 through 5 over Shevchenko. We find
that Shevchenko discloses the use of oxidizing agents to detoxify nitro derivatives of
phenol in water. Low doses of ozone are capable of providing a deep breakdown of
nitrophenols within 10 minutes. See page 4. Shevchenko discloses that the
concentration of certain materials (i.e., pesticides containing nitrophenols) is reduced
by 100% or 87% respectively. See page 5. The table on page 6 indicates a starting
pH of 10.9 to 11.0 followed by ozonization. However, neither a starting pH of 12
nor a pH of 7 to 9 is taught as required by the claimed subject matter of claims 3 and
1 respectively. As with the above rejection the examiner again relies on the
disclosure of Vakulenko to disclose the requisite neutral to basic pH range for the
ozonation reaction and the Official Notice discussed supra.
As to the virtual destruction of the aromatic nitro compounds, Table 3 of
Shevchenko contain process steps of settling, filtration, ozonation, and sorption on
an activated carbon. These steps are not excluded by claim 3 and may not be excluded
from claim 1. However, neither the examiner nor appellants have adequately
addressed the limitations of either claims 1 or 3 directed to the virtually complete
destruction of said aromatic nitro compounds and that of claim 1 additionally requiring
that the destruction be “down to inorganic components” in view of the additional steps
of coagulation, settling, and sorption on activated carbons.
2
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007