Appeal No. 2006-0363
Application No. 09/022,834
purposes of this appeal.” Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 27.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability, as well as the specification data relied upon
in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Kashiwase, like appellants,
discloses a method for removing organic contaminants from a
substrate comprising contacting the substrate with a liquid
comprising water and ozone. Kashiwase, as recognized by the
examiner, does not teach the inclusion of a scavenger in the
solution, but appellants do not contest the examiner’s factual
finding that Sehested teaches that acetic acid, one of the
claimed scavenger additives, stabilizes ozone in solution by
acting as an OH radical scavenger. Accordingly, based on the
combined teachings of Kashiwase and Sehested, we fully concur
with the examiner’s legal conclusion that “it would have been
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007