Appeal No. 2000-1849
Application No. 08/988,481
would normally be used when nitrates are included in the batch
materials, which improves the fining action of the sulfates
without negatively impacting the selenium retention."
Appealed claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jones, alone, or in view of
Barrett.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections. In essence, we are in full agreement with the
position espoused by appellants in the Brief. We add the
following for emphasis only.
The basis for the examiner's rejections is the Jones
disclosure that "[w]e have unexpectedly discovered that
introducing manganese oxide in the batch increases the
retention of selenium in the glass product over and above that
obtained by incorporating nitrates" (column 2, lines 32-35).
Notwithstanding the affidavit of patentee Jones and the
exemplified glass compositions of Jones, the examiner holds to
the argument that the referenced portion of Jones "does
suggest that nitrates are not needed" (page 5 of Answer, first
paragraph). However, as urged by appellants, there is no
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007