Appeal No. 1998-2349
Application 08/586,874
(answer, pages 7-8), and appellant does not challenge this
argument. The record, therefore, indicates that the applied
references would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, use of excess reducing agent to remove
chlorine after a step wherein an anion exchange resin is used
to remove iron.
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claim
11.
Claim 13
Appellant’s claim 13 requires the presence of coloring
amounts of each of chlorine and bromine.
The examiner argues that there is no minimum amount of
bromine required by claim 13, and that the amount can be at
the impurity level (answer, page 6). The examiner is correct
only if an impurity level is a coloring amount as required by
the claim, and the examiner has not established that an
impurity level is a coloring amount.
The examiner argues that any bromine present inherently
would be removed by Takatomi’s hydroxylamine chlorate (answer,
page 6). That may be correct, but for a prima facie case of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007