Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 8
Application No. 10/925,646
We agree that the objective of the method described in Scheurman is passivating
the metal surfaces, not specifically removing iron deposits. However, Scheurman
reasonably appears to teach the removal of iron deposits. As pointed out by the
examiner, Scheurman states that, “[w]hen the boiler is started up, the present
composition is dosed at an effective rate . . . and the total iron level is monitored until it
gets down to a non-detectable level.” Col. 5, lines 7-10. This suggests that at least at
the beginning of the method, that is, before it gets down to a non-detectable level, iron
deposits are being released from the surface.
In addition, the specification describes using DEHA to cause the release of iron
deposits. Page 3, lines 15-17. Appellants provide no evidence that, when DEHA is
used according to the method of Scheurman, “the iron deposits that are present stay in
place.” Furthermore, even if some iron deposits stay in place due to passivation, this
does not mean that the method does not “remov[e] iron deposits from the surface,” as
required by claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
method described in Scheurman would not remove iron deposits from the surface.
Instead, we conclude that the examiner has set forth a prima face case that Scheurman
is introducing its composition to a “system having iron deposits” and at a DEHA
concentration that is “sufficient to cause iron deposits to release from the surface.”
Appellants also argue that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art of treating or cleaning
closed loop systems such as taught in [Scheurman] would not be motivated to try to
clean a system by overfeeding it with a passivation agent.” Appeal Brief, page 7. As
discussed above, we conclude that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
Scheurman describes a DEHA concentration that is “sufficient to cause iron deposits to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007