Ex parte CRAVER et al. - Page 3




                   Appeal No. 1998-2523                                                                                                    
                   Application No. 08/778,644                                                                                              


                           potassium or ammonium bromide salt, and a complex of ferric ion and                                             
                           ethylenediaminetetraacetic  acid, the ferric ion being present in an                                            
                           amount of from about 50 to about 58 g/l,                                                                        
                           in at least a 1:1 volume ratio to form a regenerated bleach replenisher,                                        
                           followed by adjusting the pH of said regenerated bleach replenisher to                                          
                           from about 5.4 to about 5.6.                                                                                    

                                                       CITED REFERENCES                                                                    

                           As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following                                            
                   references:                                                                                                             
                   Ishikawa et al.  (Ishikawa)                      5,002,860                        Mar. 26, 1991                         
                   Okauchi et al.  (Okauchi)                        4,232,118                        Nov.  4, 1980                         
                           The Examiner rejected claims 18 to 22 and 27 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                                     
                   as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over                                      
                   Ishikawa or Okauchi.  The Examiner has also rejected the claims 18 to 22 and 27 to                                      
                   31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Ishikawa and                                             
                   Okauchi.  (Answer, p. 5.)                                                                                               
                           We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,                                     
                   including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in                                          
                   support of their respective positions.  This review leads us to conclude that the                                       


                                                                   -3-                                                                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007