Ex Parte Hernandez et al - Page 9

               Appeal 2007-3548                                                                            
               Application 10/627,947                                                                      
               not function below the end point presented in the graphs.  Reed discloses                   
               that there are several characteristics that attributed to the ability of activated          
               carbon to work at lower pH levels (Reed 1987).  As such, a person of                        
               ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that activated                     
               carbon would be suitable for use in removing heavy metals from wastewater                   
               streams having a pH of approximately 2.  Therefore, Appellants’ arguments                   
               regarding claims 3, 5, and 7-9 are not persuasive.                                          
                      We affirm the rejection of the subject matter of claims 11 and 12 for                
               the reasons set forth above.  Appellants have failed to explain how the                     
               benzotriazole and the activated carbon of the claimed invention differ from                 
               that which has been specified in the cited prior art.                                       
                      Appellants have not provided specific arguments directed to the                      
               subject matter of claims 28, 29, 33, 34, and 35.  Appellants principally rely               
               upon the arguments presented in the discussion of claim 1 for patentability                 
               of these claims.  Appellants have failed to explain why the specific subject                
               matter of these claims is patentable over the cited prior art.  Thus, for the               
               reasons set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, we affirm the rejection               
               of claims 28, 29, 33, 34, and 35.                                                           
                      We also affirm the rejection of the subject matter of claim 30 for the               
               reasons set forth above.  Appellants’ identification of the additional features             
               of claim 30, specifically enclosing of the metal coordinating compound and                  
               the sorbent in a flow-through enclosure, is not persuasive for patentability.               
               A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the media                  
               employed to purify a waste stream should be placed into an enclosure to                     
               prevent the media from flowing with the purified water.  The rejection of                   
               claim 30 is affirmed.                                                                       

                                                    9                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013