Appeal No. 2003-0746
Application No. 09/898,437
combination of bentonite and polyacrylamide, but we explained
that it is a matter of prima facie obviousness for one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine two or more materials when
each is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same
purpose, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ
1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Appellant’s statement that it is “not
obvious to combine two or more materials when each is taught to
be alternatively used,” has no legal support (page 5 of request,
3rd paragraph). Indeed, motivation arises to use a combination
of alternative materials when a sufficient amount of the
materials is not available. Appellant’s arguments concerning
unexpected results have been adequately addressed in the
decision.
Regarding appellant’s argument that the process steps of
Allgulin and Chung that are not recited in the appealed claims
would materially affect the basis process of removing phosphorus
from an aqueous stream, the arguments presented at page 6 of the
request lack the requisite factual, evidentiary support.
Appellant repeats the erroneous statement that “appellant’s
claims are directed to using polymer(s) to produce, not to
remove, a precipitate” (page 6 of request, penultimate
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007