Appeal No. 1999-0203
Application No. 08/399,384
the art would first have to use the inferior nitric acid in
place of the sulfuric acid catalyst (Answer, page 5). Although
such a substitution may be obvious, we do not agree with the
examiner that it is expressly described by Knoerzer within the
meaning of section 102. Furthermore, the examiner fails to
supply any convincing evidence or reasoning for the belief that
the pH of the Knoerzer solution would necessarily be the same as
recited in the claims on appeal. The examiner has failed to
present any convincing evidence or reasoning on this record that
nitric acid and sulfuric acid are “equivalent strength” and that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the same amount
of nitric acid as sulfuric acid. Additionally, the examiner has
failed to present any convincing evidence or reasoning on this
record that sulfuric acid is so strong that it would
“presumably” provide a pH within the scope of the claims. In
fact, Knoerzer teaches a wide range of amounts of sulfuric acid
and that “the sulfuric acid employed can have a strength ranging
from about 0.1 to 1.0. molality.” See col. 4, ll. 1-15.
Accordingly, the pH of the solution (see the Brief, page 10;
Reply Brief, page 6; and claim 8 on appeal) will vary depending
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007