Appeal No.2001-1865
Application 09/068,476
Yamashita would have suggested appellants' claimed amount of
crystalline alkaline metal silicate.
With respect to argument 1, the examiner correctly points
out that the reference of Yamashita is not limited to the
disclosure set forth in Example 9. The examiner indicates that
in column 5, lines 33-53, Yamashita teaches an amount of 40 to
90 parts by weight of at least one of the alkali builder and the
alkali porous oil absorbing carrier, or 10 to 80 parts by weight
of at least one of the alkali builder and the alkali porous oil
absorbing carrier (answer, pages 9 and 10). We further note
that claim 7 of Yamashita discloses that the alkali builder can
be a crystalline alumino silicate. Hence, we agree with the
examiner's view of Yamashita (that Yamashita teaches an amount
of 25% by weight or more of a crystalline alkali metal
silicate).
With respect to argument 3, we agree with the examiner’s
comments made on page 10 of the answer. Specifically, the
examiner states that Rieck teaches that crystalline silicates,
which behave as ion exchangers, and can therefore be used as
water-softening agents, have a molar ratio of SiO2/Na2O of 1.9:1
to 3.5:1 (see col. 1, lines 53-56). This disclosed molar ratio
overlaps appellants' recited ratio of 1.5 to 2.6. Also, the
teaching that such crystalline silicates are known to be used as
water-softening agents provides sufficient motivation to combine
Rieck with Yamashita.
In view of the above, it follows that we will sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection advanced by the examiner on this
appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007