Appeal 2007-3548
Application 10/627,947
The subject matter of claims 10 and 13 specifies that the sorbent is an
L type of activated carbon. The Appellants recognize that Reed describes an
H type of activated carbon. The Examiner has failed to address why the
subject matter of the claimed invention would have been obvious over the
cited references. Thus, we reverse the rejections of claims 10 and 13.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to provide a specific
rationale for support of the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 (Br. 13-
14) and claims 31 and 32 (Br. 16). We agree with the Appellants. The
Examiner has failed to direct us to reasons to support the rejection of the
cited claims. As such, we reverse the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 20,
31, and 32.
We now turn to the rejection of claim 34 over Hernandez.
The Examiner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to perform the process of Hernandez in a solution
having a pH of 6.85 (Answer 4-5).
Appellants contend that the suggestion of a pH of 6.85, that is 0.15
lower than neutral, is not suggested by Hernandez (Reply Br. 12).
The issue presented for review is as follows: Has the Examiner
reasonably determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to perform the process of Hernandez in a solution having a
pH of 6.85? On this record, we answer the question in the affirmative.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the use of a pH below 7 are not
persuasive. The present record indicates that the removal of metals from
solutions having about a pH 7 was known to persons of ordinary skill in the
art. (Note the references cited prior art in the Specification.) As such, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013