Appeal No. 2003-1274
Application No. 09/802,712 Page 5
useful for treating the type of materials that Davis treats.
Moreover, as suggested at page 7 our decision, appellant’s
specification attaches no criticality to the choice of
flocculating materials.
Nor do we agree with appellant’s characterization of the
prior art teachings as failing to suggest the functionality or
effectiveness of a cationic organic polymer flocculant addition
to a second pH adjusted waste stream as argued at page 4 of the
request. This is so for the reasons set forth by the examiner in
the answer and as we discussed in our decision and above. See
pages 4-7 of our decision and pages 5 and 6 of the examiner’s
answer. Thus, we mantain our holding that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to modify the process of Davis
based on the combined teachings of Davis and Chung by using
another flocculant comprising a cationic organic polymer with a
reasonable expectation of success in so doing.
Appellant’s comments at page 5 of the request concerning our
affirmance of the examiner’s second § 103(a) rejection
additionally relying on Keys have been considered. However,
appellant’s have not persuaded us of any error in our decision.
A reading of the text following the Point 3 heading of the
request (page 5), including the faulty comparative example
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007