Appeal No. 1999-1276 Page 3
Application No. 08/318,574
DISCUSSION
Examiner has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, examiner has the initial burden of establishing that the claimed
invention would have been obvious over at least Johnson in view of Heath, Bittner,
Clements '210 and Clements '566. That initial burden has not been met.
The claimed invention is directed to a process for quantitating an organic
peracid. The process, as exemplified by claim 1, involves three steps:
1. introducing catalase into a sample solution containing an organic peracid and a
high background of hydrogen peroxide;
2. reacting all of the hydrogen peroxide present in the solution with catalase and
without decomposing the organic peracid present in the solution; and,
3. quantitating the organic peracid in ppm active oxygen (A.O.) by measuring an
amount of the organic peracid in an absence of hydrogen peroxide.
Examiner submits, and appellants do not dispute it, that the primary
reference, Johnson, shows a method of quantitating an organic peracid in a solution
that contains hydrogen peroxide. Johnson describes (Table 3.1, p. 24, e.g., sixth
and seventh entries; references 21 and 18, respectively) conditions for determining
peracids including reagents for removing hydrogen peroxide.
Examiner (Examiner's Answer, p. 5) concedes, however, that Johnson does
not disclose catalase as the claimed invention requires. Rather than using
enzymatic means to remove the hydrogen peroxide, Johnson uses chemical
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007