Appeal 2007-0173
Application 10/438,024
the second reaction zone, but teaches that “[a]ny suitable reactor design can
be used in the chlorite formation step” (Dick, col. 6, ll. 13-14), we are in full
agreement with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the claimed liquid eductor for the second
reaction zone in Dick’s process of producing an alkaline metal chlorite of
high purity.
It is noteworthy, as pointed out by the Examiner, that Appellants’
Specification discloses that “[t]he use of a liquid eductor may represent a
major improvement over alternative gas-liquid contact equipment in terms of
the cost and simplicity due to its double function as a vacuum source and a
reactor, and in terms of effectiveness as a result of its particularly short gas-
liquid contact time” (Spec. 7, para. [0032]). This advantage of the liquid
eductor is taught by Mason at col. 3, ll. 55-65. The Specification, however,
does not disclose that use of the liquid eductor provides for a higher purity
of the alkaline metal chlorite product. Indeed, as noted by the Examiner, the
Example of Dick produces a higher purity product with respect to amount of
sodium carbonate than that disclosed in Appellants’ Example at page 11 of
the Specification, last paragraph.
Regarding separately argued claims 4 and 7, we concur with the
reasoning set forth at pages 10-11 of the Examiner’s Answer.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007