Appeal No. 2000-1006
Application 08/974,148
Brief, page 8. In particular, appellant notes that Sugihara does
not appreciate the role of IEP versus pH of the surface to be
cleaned. Id. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive in
attempting to overcome the obviousness rejection of claims 4 and
5 by attacking the combined teachings of the Sugihara and Jackson
references as if applied individually. See In re Young, 403 F.2d
754, 757, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
The examiner relies on Sugihara for a teaching that it
is known to utilize ammonium hydroxide and hydrogen chloride to
aid in cleaning substrates. According to the examiner,
[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
having the references before him, to modify the method
of Jackson by utilizing the recited pH adjustment
agents in view of the teachings of Sugihara et al., to
aid in removing contaminants from the solid surfaces,
absent a sufficient showing of unexpected results.
Examiner’s Answer, page 6. Appellant has failed to present
arguments traversing the examiner’s proposed combination.
See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562
(CCPA 1972)(As long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided in the prior art, there
is no requirement that the references be combined for the
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007