Appeal 2006-2667
Application 10/257,952
Mackintosh et al. disclose (see col. 2 line 5 through col. 4
line 52, and col. 6 line 29 through col. 8 line 14) a method of
stabilizing water or inhibiting corrosion in water systems
substantially as claimed. The claims differ from Mackintosh et
al. by reciting that a proportion of the magnesium compounds is
increased at the expense of the other hardening constituents. It
is submitted that the bed utilized in Mackintosh et al. can
include magnesium carbonate or dolomite, which would appear
to increase the magnesium compound proportion of the raw
water passing through the bed, and substitute or replace
hardening constituents with the proportion of magnesium. It
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the
method of Mackintosh et al. by increasing the recited
proportion of magnesium compounds in the liquid, to aid in
stabilizing the liquid. The specific partial flow and proportion
utilized, would have been an obvious matter of process
optimization to one skilled in the art, depending on the specific
liquid treated and results desired, absent a sufficient showing of
unexpected results.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mackintosh as applied above and further in view of Hann.
The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to modify the method of Mackintosh … by addition of the recited
magnesium salt in view of the teachings of Hann … to aid in inhibiting scale
deposition in the liquid" (Answer 4).
Concerning the § 112 rejection, the Appellant argues that the claim 11
feature under consideration "is clearly set forth in the specification" at a
number of places (Br. 3).
The Appellant argues that each of the § 103 rejections is improper be
cause Mackintosh contains no teaching or suggestion of increasing a
proportion of magnesium and/or magnesium compounds at the expense of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013