Appeal No. 2000-0012
Application No. 09/024,413
that Abell discloses, as urged by appellant, that the water
constituent of the solution of sulphuric acid agglomerates the
ore. Clearly, the claimed treatment with concentrated sulphuric
acid also subjects the particles to water.
Concerning the disclosure of Stetefeldt, appellant maintains
that "[i]t is not seen how building a tower to contain fumes
would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dilute
aqueous solution of sulphuric acid and sodium nitrate to
eliminate the emission of NOx fumes from a heap" (page 6 of
Brief, penultimate sentence). Certainly, Stetefeldt, an old
reference dating back to 1883, does not teach using a dilute
solution of sulphuric acid and sodium nitrate, but was cited by
the examiner to firmly establish that it was old in the art to
leach copper from its ore by utilizing an aqueous solution of
sulphuric acid and sodium nitrate. The motivation to use a
dilute solution emanates from Carnahan, as explained above.
Appellant also maintains at page 6 of the Brief that Keyes
teaches away from heap leaching. However, we agree with the
examiner that there is no meaningful distinction between the
claimed step of stacking the treated ore in a heap and Keyes'
disclosure of forming the agglomerated ore in a heap enclosed by
a tank.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007