Appeal No. 2000-0110
Application 08/818,447
of pH and chloride concentrations similar to those recited in the
appellants’ claims (page 2), and a teaching that HCl prevents
adhesion of calcium to a cathode (pages 5 and 10).
The examiner argues that Shiramizu teaches that it was known
in the art to use tap water as an electrolyte, and that because
tap water contains sodium chloride, using tap water in
Shiramizu’s anode and cathode sub-cells would provide the aqueous
sodium chloride solution in the anode sub-cell and water in the
cathode sub-cell required by the appellants’ claims (answer,
page 4). Shiramizu, however, teaches that tap water is
“unpreferable or the most deadly foe to a semiconductor device,
and hence cannot be used” (col. 5, lines 13-16). The examiner
argues that tap water is a deadly foe only because the device
being treated is a semiconductor device, and that the appellants’
claims do not require that a semiconductor device is treated
(answer, pages 4-5). The examiner’s rejection, however, is based
upon modifying Shiramizu’s method, and the examiner has not
explained how the applied prior art itself would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Shiramizu’s method such that
tap water is suitable for use in that method. See In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976) (In
order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007