Appeal No. 2000-1006
Application 08/974,148
different mechanism than that which is utilized by Jackson.3
Specifically, appellant distinguishes the present invention from
that of Jackson as follows:
Jackson uses a high pH solution of at least
10.5, and he states that the rosin reacts
with the alkali to form a water soluble soap.
Applicant is removing insoluble organic
materials that do not react with either
alkali or acid to form soluble products.
Instead, applicant, using hydrogen peroxide,
ionizes such inorganic [sic, organic]
materials to [sic] as to give them a charge,
either positive or negative depending on the
nature of the surface. When the organic
material and the surface it is adhered to
have the same charge, they repel each other,
loosening the bonds between them and allowing
the organic material to be removed.
Appeal Brief, page 6.
In deciding patentability issues under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
“[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison, 810 F.2d 1561,
1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987). Again, as correctly observed by the examiner, claim
1 merely requires that the oxidant is present in an amount
3 “Jackson has no understanding of the role played by IEP versus
pH, or even of the role of pH versus IEP of the surface. Nor
does Jackson teach the role for hydrogen peroxide required by and
taught by applicant.” Appeal Brief, page 7 (emphasis added).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007