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