Appeal No. 2003-1280 8
Application No. 09/476,633
With respect to claim 1, representative of the claims which have been rejected as
anticipated by Kishii, the claimed subject matter is directed to “a second agent
comprising hydrogen peroxide.” The term “comprising” is open to the presence of
additional components. Accordingly, the presence of both water and a mineral acid as
disclosed by Kishii is not precluded by the claimed subject matter, particularly since
mineral acid is known to stabilize hydrogen peroxide as determined supra.
Based upon the above findings and analysis, we conclude that the disclosure and
teachings of Kishii are sufficient to anticipate the claimed subject matter.
The Rejection under § 103 (a)
With respect to the rejection under § 103(a), we have previously selected claim 6
as representative of the claimed subject matter. The aforesaid claim is directed to “a
second agent of approximately 4% by volume or less of hydrogen peroxide.” We find
that Kishii discloses that, “the concentration of H2O2 in the cleaning process is less than
2% . . . .” See column 4, lines 29-31. We further find that, “a cleaning solution
containing HCl, H2O2 and H2O with a volumetric ratio of 1:1:48 may be used. . . .” in the
cleaning process which corresponds to a 2% by volume hydrogen peroxide. See column
14, lines 57-59. The 2% by volume hydrogen peroxide meets the requirements of claim
6. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection under § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007