Ex Parte HARD - Page 14



          Appeal No. 2000-1019                                                        
          Application No. 08/623,852                                                  

                    Bender teaches the process of solubilizing metals                 
               from metal containing material by contacting with                      
               sulfuric acid containing a reducing agent and a carbon                 
               source (see claims 1, 29, 36 and the examples) (id).                   
                    Bender differs in that the sulfuric acid                          
               containing hydrofluoric acid is not stated (id).                       
                    Pazdej teaches the use of sulfuric acid and                       
               hydrofluoric acid to solubilize metals (see the figures                
               and claims) (id at page 5).                                            
                    It would have been obvious to one of ordinary                     
               skill in the art at the time the invention was made to                 
               use sulfuric acid containing hydrofluoric acid to                      
               dissolve metals in the process of Bender because that                  
               is what is taught by Pazdej as desirable (id).                         
                    The subject matter as a whole would have been                     
               obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the                 
               time the invention was made to select the portion of                   
               the prior art’s range which is within the range of                     
               applicant’s claims because it has been held to be                      
               obvious to select a value in a known range by                          
               optimization for the best results, see In re Aller, 105                
               USPQ 233 (id).                                                         
                    The subject matter as a whole would have been                     
               obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the                 
               time the invention was made to have selected the                       
               overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the                      
               reference because overlapping ranges have been held to                 
               be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari,                  
               182 USPQ 549 (id).                                                     
               In response to the examiner’s rejection, the appellants                
          begin by arguing that                                                       
               Bender contains no disclosure relating to a process for                
               recovering metal values which utilizes a reducing agent                
               and a carbon source which differs from the reducing                    
               agent.  The Examiner noted that the claims of the                      
               present invention do not require that the reducing                     
               agent and the carbon source be different materials.                    
               See Office Action, May 6, 1998, p. 4.  However,                        
               Appellant has requested that its claims be amended to                  
               more specifically claim this aspect of the present                     
                                         14                                           




Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007