Appeal No. 1997-0525 Page 6
Application No. 08/355,931
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner has not carried his burden of explaining how
the teachings of either Bregman or Bray furnish sufficient
evidence to have reasonably suggested the method of claim 7 or
the apparatus of claim 9. As correctly argued by appellants
in their brief and second reply brief, the examiner has not
specifically established where either of the here-applied
references contain a teaching or suggestion of the method
features relating to maintaining the pH of a concentrate at a
level of at most 6 and maintaining the concentrate silica
concentration as specified in claim 7. Nor has the examiner
convincingly explained how either Bregman or Bray teach or
suggest the sensing means for measuring the pH of the
concentrate together with the control means with a built-in
feedback control system for maintaining the pH of the
concentrate at a level of at most 6 as specified in claim 9.
Moreover, the examiner has not substantiated how the combined
teachings of either of the Japanese references together with
either Bregman or Bray as applied against claims 8 and 10
teach or suggest the above-noted limitations as called for
with respect to a second concentrate in claims 8 and 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007