Appeal No. 2006-1864
Application No. 10/167,922
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner's
conclusion of obviousness is supported by the prior art relied
upon. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection.
We agree with appellants that Burns is directed to the
synergistic effect of using dehydrated alkaline metal phosphates
in combination with carbonates to produce a high purity brine.
Burns, itself, does not suggest using organic phosphates of the
type claimed. However, as acknowledged by appellants, Axelrad
teaches a method of producing high purity brine that utilizes
retarding agents that may be phosphates having hydrocarbon
groups containing between two and thirty carbon atoms to inhibit
the dissolution of calcium sulfate. As acknowledged by
appellants, "phosphates having a hydrocarbon group containing
between 25 and 30 carbon atoms would result in the selection of
a compound having a molecular weight of more than 500" (page 4
of Reply Brief, last paragraph). Accordingly, appellants
concede that Axelrad teaches the use of both low molecular
weight and high molecular weight phosphate retarding agents for
the preparation of a high purity brine having low levels of
sulfate and alkaline earth metal ions. Accordingly, we find
that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007