Appeal No. 2003-1274
Application No. 09/802,712 Page 2
Appellant maintains that there are incorrect statements at
page 4 of our decision. One of the alleged incorrect statements
relates to the examiner’s findings concerning Davis, including
the finding of a disclosure of the addition of a flocculant to a
second pH adjusted stream in Davis and our observation that
appellant did not dispute those findings. The other alleged
incorrect statement is concerned with the disclosure of a
preferred anionic acrylamide polymer flocculant in Davis and our
observation of appellant’s notation of such disclosure.
As to the first of the alleged incorrect statements,
appellant seemingly suggests, in the request, that Davis does not
disclose adding a flocculant to the second pH adjusted stream.
We can not agree. Davis (column 1, line 49 through column 2,
line 2) suggests “further processing with suitable flocculating
agents” after a pH readjusting (second pH adjusting) step.
Concerning the second of the alleged incorrect statements
about a preferred anionic acrylamide flocculant, we note that
Davis (column 2, lines 3-6) describes “flocculating agents I
prefer to use in the practice of my invention comprise a group of
anionic acrylamide polymers . . . .” Appellant may be correct
that Davis does not explicitly mention a cationic polyacrylamide
for comparison; however, Davis does describe “suitable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007