Appeal No. 1998-2349
Application 08/586,874
high-activated carbon for chlorine removal and
avoiding, due to the iron being removed upstream of
the high-activated carbon, any reduction of the iron
by the high-activated carbon, but has the disadvantage
of some loss of anion exchange resin capacity. The
fair suggestion, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
of this second approach would have rendered the method
recited in appellant’s claim 8 prima facie obvious to
such a person.
My point of disagreement lies here: I do not believe that
Takatomi fairly suggests the second approach nor the advantage
of the second approach expressed by my colleagues. Takatomi
teaches only processes in which chlorine is removed upstream
from the iron removing anion exchange resin. Takatomi
expresses a specific reason for performing the chlorine
removal before iron removal, i.e. removing the free chlorine
prevents oxidation and partial loss of the exchange capacity
of the anion exchange resin (Takatomi, page 2). There is no
mention of reversing the steps of chlorine and iron removal in
the reference and the examiner has pointed to no specific
evidence that performing iron removal first was known in any
process of purifying hydrochloric acid. Nor has the examiner
presented any evidence or convincing technical reasoning that
those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
permissible in this type of process to allow oxidation and
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007