Appeal No. 2006-2485 Page 17
Application No. 10/925,646
Appellants argue that Haraer “teaches the use of sulfite and bisulfite salts,
diethylhydroxylamine, and hydrazine, as antioxidants useful for scavenging oxygen to
protect tetra-substituted phenylenediamines which are the focal point for the oxygen
scavengers that are the subject of [Haraer]. While generally low doses of the
compounds claimed in the present invention are known to be effective in corrosion
inhibition applications, and as oxygen scavengers in some applications, their use for
cleaning in the two step method of the present invention is unknown.” Appeal Brief,
pages 14-15.
However, Appellants have not shown that the doses described in Scheurman
would not be “sufficient to cause the iron deposits to release from the surface” of the
system. In addition, Appellants have not shown that it would not have been obvious to
include sodium bisulfite in the composition of Scheurman. Thus, Appellants’ arguments
do not overcome the prima face case that claim 6 would have been obvious. Therefore,
we affirm the rejection of claim 6. Claims 17 and 18 fall with claim 6.
The examiner rejected claims 12, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Scheurman in view of Waller and Bucher.5 We will focus on claim 21, which
ultimately depends from claim 15 and recites that the dispersant is a copolymer of
acrylic acid and 2-acrylamido-2-methyl propane sulfonic acid.
The examiner stated that “Scheurman in view of Waller teach dispersants, but fail
to teach the specific dispersant” of claim 21, which is taught by Bucher. Examiner’s
Answer, page 6. The examiner reasoned that “[i]t would have been obvious and within
the level of the skilled artisan to have modified the modified method of Scheurman III to
5 Bucher et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,867,944, issued September 19, 1989.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007