Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 16
Application No. 10/925,646
Appellants have not set forth any persuasive argument to the contrary. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 15. Claims 2-4, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20 fall with
claims 5 and 15.
The examiner rejected claims 6, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Scheurman in view of Waller and Haraer.4 We will focus on claim 6, which
depends from claim 5 and recites that the oxygen scavenger is sodium bisulfite.
The examiner stated that Scheurman in view of Waller “teach sulfite salts, but fail
to teach sodium bisulfite.” Examiner’s Answer, page 5. However, the examiner
reasoned that Haraer “teach[es] oxygen scavengers for boiler water” and “examples of
equivalent scavengers which include sulfite and bisulfite salts, diethylhydroxylamine,
and hydrazine. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified the modified method of Scheurman to include equivalent compounds
such as bisulfite salts, as taught by Haraer et al., for purposes of performing the same
function as oxygen scavengers.” Examiner’s Answer, pages 5-6.
We conclude that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
As discussed above, the examiner has set forth a prima facie case that Scheurman
anticipates claim 1 and that Scheurman and Waller render claim 5 obvious. Haraer
describes adding oxygen scavengers such as sulphite and bisulfite salts, hydrazine,
hydroxylamine, and carbohydrazides to boiler water, to avoid the corrosive effect of
dissolved oxygen. Col. 1, lines 28-36. Based on this teaching, we conclude that the
examiner has set forth a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to include
bisulfite salts, such as sodium bisulfite, in the composition of Scheurman.
4 Haraer et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,164,110, issued November 17, 1992.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007