Appeal No. 2003-1980
Application No. 09/351,868
We agree with the appellants that Allain and Wahlbeck do not
render the invention as claimed obvious, and that Foreman does not
remedy the deficiencies discussed above with respect to each
reference. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
D. The Rejection of Claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Allain in view of Cohen.
The examiner has found that Cohen indicated the use of gases
as claimed in claims 6-8 are conventional in the art of producing
deoxygenated water. Accordingly, he concludes that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce
deoxygenated water in this manner. (Examiner’s Answer, page 7,
last paragraph).
The appellants again note that the combination of Allain with
Cohen does not support a rejection under section 103 as Allain is
inapplicable. (Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 8-10). We agree, for
the reasons recited above, and reverse this rejection as well.
E. The Rejection of Claim 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wahlbeck in view of Allain.
The examiner has found that Allain indicates the use of
deoxygenated water is preferable in treating metals with deionized
water. Accordingly, he concludes that it would have been obvious
to use the deionized water of Allain in the Wahlbeck process.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 8, lines 3-7).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007