Appeal 2007-2774
Application 10/285,632
[37] Appellant argues that Mahoney's teaching of applying "large
quantities" of paint does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
conclude that 5 to 20% of recirculating flush water is paint (Br. at 10,
¶ 2).
[38] Appellant expressly directs our attention to the test protocol in
Example 15 of Mahoney, which uses a simulated dirty flush solution
of 0.2% paint by volume, as an indication of the typical amount of
paint found in used flush solutions (Br. 7, ¶ 3, and 11-12, Table 1; FF
24).
[39] Appellant also directs our attention to eight patents of record,
including Mizuno, said to show that, in the prior art as a whole, a
typical used flush solution contains less than 1% by volume of paint
due to the very large amounts of flush solutions used (Br. at 11, ¶ 2).
[40] According to Appellant, the paint concentrations (volume %, unless
noted otherwise) in the test solutions used in these eight patents are as
follows:
Patent Title Vol. % Paint
Forney Process for Controlling Pollution and Contamination in
Paint or Lacquer Spray Booths 0.25
Gabel Composition for the Clarification and Detackification of
Paint Spray Booth Wastes 0.1
Puchalski Paint Spray Booth Detackificaton Composition and
Method 0.5
Leitz Paint Detackification Method 1.0 (wt. %)
Arots Process for Detackification of Paint Spray Operation
Wastes 0.25
Merrell Paint Spray Booth Treatment 1.0
Rey Method for Removing Solids from Systems Containing
Water-Based Paints 0.2
Mizuno Wet Spray Booth Treating Agent and Method for
Treatment Therewith 0.2
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013