Appeal 2007-1669
Application 10/434,038
USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not
only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. . .”). The
analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and
should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
The Examiner has found that Kurian describes the treatment of aqueous
waste streams containing alpha, beta-ethylenically unsaturated aldehydes
and ketones non-toxic to biological treatment systems. This method
involves contacting the streams with organic monoamines, organic
polyamines including diamines, triamines and tetramines, and/or inorganic
ammonium compounds. The subject matter of the claimed invention is
directed to the treatment of non-aqueous waste streams whereas the Kurian
reference is directed to the treatment of aqueous waste streams. (Answer 5).
The Examiner has found that Roof teaches methods for removal of
aldehyde or ketones, such as acrolein, from the gaseous or liquid mixture by
reacting with polyamines or other nitrogen containing chemical scavengers
(Roof, col. 1, l. 65- col. 2, l. 7). Roof teaches that the described method is
expected to work in both aqueous and non-aqueous systems (Roof, col. 2, ll.
43-56) (Answer 5). As such, Roof teaches that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably expected that the chemical reaction of an
aldehyde or ketone with a polyamine or nitrogen containing compound
would occur in both an aqueous system and a non-aqueous system.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyamines of Kurian in the treatment
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013