Appeal No. 1998-2349
Application 08/586,874
therefore, would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art for this additional reason.
Regarding the rejection over Wilson in view of Takatomi,
appellant’s claimed invention would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Takatomi as
discussed above. Wilson provides an additional disclosure of
removing chlorine from hydrochloric acid by use of
hydroxylamine (col. 1, lines 33-35).
Because appellant has not effectively rebutted the prima
facie case of obviousness of the method recited in claim 8
over the applied references, we affirm the rejections of that
claim.
Claim 11
Appellant’s claim 11 requires that the reducing agent is
supplied in excess compared to a stoichiometric quantity.
Takatomi discloses that “[t]he amount of the reductant to
be added is a stoichiometric amount or less for the amount of
the free chlorine, and the amount of the reductant should not
be excessive” (page 4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007