Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 9
Application No. 10/925,646
release from the surface.” Appellants have not shown that the amounts taught by
Scheurman are not sufficient to cause the release of iron deposits. In fact, the example
included in the Evidence Appendix of the Appeal Brief demonstrates that some iron
deposits are released without DEHA. Thus, we find that the amounts of DEHA
described in Scheurman would be sufficient to cause the release of loosely adhered iron
deposits.
In addition, Appellants argue that Scheurman, at column 5, lines 18-31, states
that its invention “is useful in passivating new or recently cleaned boilers. Clearly
[Scheurman] thereby distinguished between cleaning and passivating. One would not
clean an already clean system.” Appeal Brief, page 8.
As discussed above, we agree that the objective of the method described in
Scheurman is passivating the metal surfaces, not specifically removing iron deposits.
However, it reasonably appears that some removal of iron deposits is occurring in the
method of Scheurman. The fact that Scheurman describes “monitor[ing the iron level]
until it gets down to a non-detectable level” indicates that Scheurman’s method results
in iron deposits being removed.
Appellants also rely on an example included in the Evidence Appendix of the
Appeal Brief (originally filed April 5, 2005). Appellants argue that this example
demonstrates the “difference between the prior art and the present invention.” Appeal
Brief, page 7. In particular, Appellants argue that this example demonstrates that “there
is a dramatic increase in the amount of iron in solution as the method of the application
is employed. This is clearly different from the teachings of [Scheurman] as illustrated at
column 5, line 66- column 6, line 2.” Id. In the cited passage, Scheurman states that
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007