Appeal No. 2004-0630
Application No. 09/755,177
sulfuric acid solution corresponds to the remover solvent which
is recited in the claim under review, as revealed by the first
full paragraph on page 9 of the appellant's specification. It
follows that the argument in question is factually erroneous and
concomitantly unconvincing.
In addition, the appellant argues that the above-discussed
embodiment of Kashiwase "does not have a separate inlet port for
introducing a solution" (Brief, page 10; emphasis deleted). This
argument lacks persuasive merit in several respects.
First, the independent claim on appeal recites only a single
method step of "introducing oxygen water of high concentration
into a container by way of an oxygen-water-of-high-concentration
inlet pipe which introduces an oxygen-water-of-high-
concentration," and the appellant implicitly concedes that this
step is met by Kashiwase (e.g., again see page 10 of the Brief).
While claim 7 includes additional apparatus recitation to the
effect that the afore-quoted container has "an inlet port for
introducing a solution into the container in a controllable
manner," we do not perceive and the appellant does not explain
what if any impact this apparatus recitation has on the
previously quoted method step. See Leesoma Corp. v. U.S.,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007