Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 12
Application No. 10/925,646
ppm, and more preferably 100-500 ppm (aqueous solution to treating solution).” Col. 2,
lines 29-33. Veldman states that the oxygen scavengers “can be mixed in a ratio of 2-6
(and preferably 5) weight % quinone and 10-30 (and preferably 10) weight %
hydroxylamine, with the balance [being] deionized water.” Col. 5, lines 55-59.
In Example 1 of Veldman, 8 gallons of Inhibitor A, which contains 10 weight %
DEHA, is initially added to a 12,000 gallon system. Col. 6, line 64, to col. 7, line 43.
Thus, the system contained approximately 67 ppm DEHA. This amount is within the
range of 3 to 500 ppm that is identified in the specification as being “sufficient to cause
iron deposits to release from the surface of a closed loop system.” Page 7, lines 11-15.
In Example 1, Veldman states that corrosion of the equipment was increasing but
that, within two weeks of initial dosing with the composition, “[c]orrosion in the system
was markedly reduced as indicated by solution iron decreasing from an initial
concentration of 65 ppm to less than 30 ppm.” Col. 7, lines 7-33. The presence of iron
at the beginning of the process indicates that the system used in Veldman had iron
deposits on its surface. In addition, because the DEHA concentration used in this
example is identified in the specification as sufficient to cause iron deposits to release
from the surface of a closed loop system, we agree that the examiner has set forth a
prima facie case of anticipation.
Appellants argue that Veldman “is directed to corrosion inhibiting and not
cleaning.” Appeal Brief, page 9. In addition, Appellants argue that the independent
claims each require that: “1) the method is applied in a system having surface iron
deposits, and 2) the method is applied such that the iron deposits release from the
surface of the system,” and Veldman does not teach or suggest “these elements of the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007