Appeal No. 2004-1937
Application No. 09/086,033
between the reducing agent disclosure on lines 1-18 of page 8 and
the pH range disclosure of Figure 4/Test 4 is highlighted by the
disclosure on lines 20-23 of specification page 8 wherein the
appellant teaches an alternative embodiment wherein the amount
and rate by which the reducing agent is introduced may be based
on the concentration of fluorocompound sensed by an exhaust gas
monitor rather than the sensed pH value of the scrubbing unit
aqueous medium.
Thus, the appellant’s disclosed use of sodium thiosulfate or
potassium iodide to increase fluorine abatement and to inhibit
OF2 formation is seemingly unrelated to the particular pH range
disclosed in Figure 4/Test 4 which does not involve use of these
or any other reducing agents. In fact, for all that can be
determined based on the appellant’s original disclosure, the
particular pH range under consideration is not well suited for
achieving the fluorine abatement and OF2 inhibition functions of
these agents. Under these circumstances, we continue to believe
that the appellant’s original disclosure would not convey
possession of the appealed independent claim feature wherein the
recited pH range is maintained in an aqueous medium which
contains sodium thiosulfate or potassium iodide. Further, our
continued belief is even more well founded with respect to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007