Appeal 2007-4100
Application 09/962,971
‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill
in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”).
Here, the Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s finding at
page 4 of the Answer that:
Benjamin discloses a waterwork including a water treatment
plant (col. 5, lines 21-22; and col. 14, lines 44-45) having an
adsorbent unit containing a granular composition of
iron oxide and magnesium oxide (see col. 14, lines 65 and 68).
Accordingly, this primary reference discloses the claimed
invention with the exception of the use of agglomerated
particles (pellets). Klabunde discloses agglomerated fine
particles (pellets) of the type recited, and further teaches that
such pellets make the adsorbent "easier to handle" (col. 11,
lines 44-45). [Br. 11-15.]
The Appellants first contend that there is no suggestion to pelletize the
granular composition taught by Benjamin (Br. 12). According to the
Appellants, Klabunde teaches away from pelletizing the granular
composition of the type discussed in Benjamin since Klabunde’s Figure 1
shows that the resulting pellet is less effective than powder (id.).
The first question is, therefore, whether Klabunde teaches away from
forming pellets from the powder of the type discussed in Benjamin. On this
record, we answer this question in the negative.
As is apparent from Klabunde’s disclosure as a whole, Klabunde
would have suggested employing the granular composition of the type
discussed in Benjamin in the form of pellets. Specifically, we find that
Klabunde teaches (col. 11, ll. 34 to 67) that:
The data from Table 5 provides further evidence that a
higher surface area/unit mass is obtained when the hydroxide is
activated in pellet form. This is beneficial, as storage of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013