Appeal No. 2002-1102
Application No. 09/329,591
Claims 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Swallow, Dickinson, McBrayer and Chen.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a thorough
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
We cannot sustain this rejection.
The examiner recognizes that the admitted prior art fails to
show the here claimed pH detecting means, sodium hydroxide supply
means and control means. However, it is the examiner’s position
that “McBrayer teaches a pH detecting means, a NaOH supply means
and a control means” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify the
admitted prior art as modified above to include a pH monitoring
system” (answer, page 5). According to the examiner, “[a]n
ordinarily skilled artist would be motivated to do the foregoing
to control corrosion within the reactor system” (answer, page 5).
We cannot agree.
As correctly argued by the appellants, McBrayer contains no
teaching or suggestion concerning a PCB decomposing apparatus of
the type here claimed or of the type shown in Figure 10 of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007