Appeal 2006-2404
Application 10/884,619
residual ozone from the water (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 59-65; and col. 4, ll. 7-11).
Any showing of a suggestion or motivation must be clear and particular, not
general statements. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Therefore, we REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Wasinger and AAPA.
As noted above, the scope of claim 7 presents a different issue. As
discussed above, the process disclosed by Wasinger presumably employs
counter-current air stripping of an aqueous solution of MTBE with a packed
column. As correctly found by the Examiner (Answer 3), the pressure
taught by Wasinger for the pressurized contact tank is approximately the
same as the claimed pressure and would presumably have been employed by
the artisan in the subsequent air stripping. Additionally, we note that
Appellant admits that use of various pressures for the air stripper was known
in the art, as was the specifically claimed pressure range (Specification 4-5
and 7). Therefore, from the combined teachings of Wasinger and AAPA, we
determine that every limitation of claim 7 on appeal would have been
suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Wasinger
and AAPA is AFFIRMED.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is REVERSED. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is AFFIRMED.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007