Appeal No. 2007-1227 Page 2
Application No. 10/416,211
The evidence relied upon by the examiner is:
Winters et al. (Winters) WO 93/25470 Dec. 23, 1993
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Winters.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Winters.
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and affirm the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DISCUSSION
Anticipation:
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Winters.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), Winters “discloses a method
of producing chlorine dioxide, which comprises reacting chloric acid[ ]1 with
hydrogen peroxide as a reducing agent in such proportions that chlorine dioxide
is produced (note claim 1).” More particularly, Winters teaches a continuous
method for the production of chlorine dioxide which comprises continuously
reducing chlorate ions with hydrogen peroxide in an aqueous acid medium which
1 According to appellants’ specification (page 3), chlorate ion is “generally provided in the form of
chloric acid . . . .”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013