Appeal No. 2003-1274
Application No. 09/802,712 Page 4
As for appellant’s speculative assumptions concerning
cationic polymer sensitivity to acidic pH as set forth at page 2
of the request, we observe that the greater than 3 pH value of
representative claim 1 includes acidic, neutral and basic pH’s.
It follows that such arguments are unpersuasive not only for
their lack of supporting evidence but because the representative
claim is not limited to a “still very acidic” pH. As the
examiner explained in the answer, the initial pH of the food
processing waste (from a poultry processing plant) that was
treated in the example of Davis was 6.4. Since Chung does not
adjust the pH of the food processing waste (from a chicken
processing plant) therein, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that the pH of the waste that Chung
treats with an anionic, non-ionic, cationic or amphoteric
flocculant can include a pH above 3 and within the scope of the
second adjusted pH (6 - 7.5) of Davis. Accordingly, we have and
continue to agree with the examiner that Chung’s teachings with
respect to the interchangeableness of cationic and anionic
flocculants would have been regarded as being prima facie obvious
to apply in the pH range of interest in Davis by one of ordinary
skill in the art since Chung evidences that the claimed cationic
organic polymer was known in the art as a flocculating agent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007