Appeal 2006-2667
Application 10/257,952
is treated such that the molar distribution of the hardening constituents in the
liquid is influenced such that a proportion of magnesium and/or magnesium
compounds is increased at the expense of the proportion of the other
hardening constituents. Further details of this method are set forth in
representative claims 1 and 11 which read as follows:
1. A method for inhibiting scale formation and/or corrosion in
systems conveying or in contact with liquids, whereby the liquid has a
hardness and is treated such that the molar distribution of the hardening
constituents in the liquid to be treated is influenced such that a proportion of
magnesium and/or magnesium compounds is increased at the expense of the
proportion of the other hardening constituents, wherein only a partial flow of
the liquid is treated and then the treated partial flow is mixed with an
untreated main flow.
11. The method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the hardness of the
liquid is not changed.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner has
evidence of obviousness:
Hann US 5,277,823 Jan. 11, 1994
Mackintosh US 5,993,737 Nov. 30, 1999
Claim 11 stands rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. According to
the Examiner, the claim 11 limitation "the hardness of the liquid is not
changed" lacks clear antecedent basis in the Specification as originally filed
and is drawn to new matter (Answer 3).
Claims 1-4, 6, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mackintosh. In the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of
the Answer, the Examiner describes his position as follows:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013