Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 10
Application No. 10/925,646
“[d]uring the test period [of about five months] the levels of oxygen, hydrazine, and iron
in Unit 2 [a boiler system treated with the composition of Scheurman] were surprisingly
more stable than the corresponding levels in Unit 1 [a boiler system treated with a
commercial formulation].”
We do not agree that the example provides evidence that Scheurman does not
anticipate claim 1. Appellants’ example describes the iron removal from “pre-corroded
carbon steel coupons” over the course of two days, whereas the examples in
Scheurman describe the effect of carbohydrazide and DEHA over a period of about five
months. Although Scheurman states that the iron levels were “surprisingly more stable”
over the five-month period, these examples do not specifically describe the iron levels
when the process was begun. Scheurman teaches that when the boiler is first started
up, the total iron level is monitored until it gets down to a non-detectable level. Col. 5,
lines 7-10. Based on this teaching, we agree with the examiner that it is reasonable to
conclude that Scheurman’s method causes iron deposits to be removed. Scheurman’s
disclosure that the iron level was stable after the system was passivated does not
indicate that, at the beginning of the Scheurman process, iron deposits were not
removed.
Appellants’ arguments do not overcome the prima facie case of anticipation.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 over Scheurman. Claims 7-9 and 22 fall
with claim 1.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007