Appeal 2007-2985
Application 010/669,978
1 In the Examiner's Answer (admittedly for the first time during
2 prosecution of the application), the Examiner in response to an argument in
3 the Appeal Brief (also made for the first time during prosecution) found:
4 [1] it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill
5 in the art to determine a suitable amount of the bases with a pkB of at
6 least 4.5 in order to achieve a pH of about 7.5 or less and
7 [2] since ammonia is a well-known base, it would have been
8 obvious to employ such a well-known base in the composition of Tsao
9 to provide a pH of about 7.5 or less.
10 Examiner's Answer 7.
11 Haas does not challenge the Examiner's findings in the Reply Brief.
12 On this record we therefore have the Examiner's uncontested findings
13 and we have no independent reason to question those findings.
14 The fact that Haas might have argued that the findings are not
15 supported by the evidence is of no avail when—as here—a challenge is not
16 timely presented.
17 Based on the unchallenged findings made by the Examiner, we have
18 little difficulty holding that it would have been obvious to add ammonia to a
19 stabilized aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide to obtain a proper pH
20 consistent with the objectives of Tsao.
21 Arguments by Haas
22 We have considered all arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and
23 Reply Brief.
24 Haas argues that the Examiner could not have found that the aqueous
25 solution of Tsao "inherently" does not have an alkali metal, an alkaline earth
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013