Appeal No. 1998-2349
Application 08/586,874
above, would be prevention of reduction of the iron by high-
activated carbon, so that iron could be removed effectively by
the anion exchange resin and high-activated carbon could be
used to remove the chlorine.
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art,
when carrying out appellant’s method, would not use a strong
basic anion exchange resin which is known to be susceptible to
damage by chlorine but, rather, would use an ion exchange
resin which would remove the iron without being damaged by
chlorine (brief, pages 5-6; reply brief, page 3). Appellant
does not disclose what ion exchange resin is used in his
method, but, rather, merely states that the iron is removed,
preferably by filtration and ion exchange (specification,
page 2). If those of ordinary skill in the art knew, as
appellant argues, of resins which effectively remove iron
without being damaged by chlorine, then the disclosure of
partial loss of exchange capacity by Takatomi would have led
them to use such a resin instead of Takatomi’s strong basis
anion exchange resin. See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 572,
184 USPQ 607, 613 (CCPA 1975). Appellant’s claimed invention,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007