Court Opinion

ID: 9451207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:10:02.458671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:36.929816
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result in this case. The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on Meyer in view of Bodamer. Appellant, with commendable candor, states in his brief:
The Meyer patent admittedly constitutes the starting point from which the present invention resulted. This patent shows the identical alkaline cleaning materials, sodium gluconate and sodium hydroxide, in the same proportions as employed by the present applicant, and used as electrolyte in electrolytic cleaning of ferrous metals.
Appellant also agrees that Meyer does disclose plating the iron resulting from deoxidizing out of the cleaning solution.
Appellant argues that two differences between his claims and the prior art would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in subject matter sought to be patented: first, the claimed process calls for continuously plating out the iron in the cleaning solution in a separate tank; and second, the claimed process also calls for maintaining the iron in the solution below 0.1 grams per liter of solution.
In reviewing the references of record, I find that Meyer does disclose plating out the iron in solution during the course of removing the ferrous oxides from the molds. He rejuvenates the solution continuously during the process of deoxidizing the molds through plating and also precipitation when cyanide is used in the solution to form iron cyanide complexes. Meyer also discloses maintaining the solution by plating, precipitation and replacing the active agents in the solution as they are used to conform to the proportions claimed, which appellant admittedly also claims. Considering Bodamer, I find it discloses a process for rejuvenating a cleaning solution on a continuous basis. I agree with appellant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion in Bodamer that the cleaning solution is drawn from an operating pickling tank. Nor do I find it necessary to dispute appellant’s argument that pickling is essentially and normally a batch operation. Bodamer as a whole teaches a continuous rejuvenating process for a cleaning solution wherein iron is plated out and the solution is suitable for further utilization in a cleaning process.
Viewing the prior art teachings as I do, I find that the alleged limitations in the appealed claims present at best extremely subtle differences over the prior art. Meyer fully describes the cleaning step of appellant’s process. Meyer further discloses continuously plating out the iron in the cleaning solution during the deoxidizing or cleaning of the molds. Meyer fails to disclose precisely where in the physical configuration embodying his process he plates out the unwanted iron oxides, i. e., whether rejuvenating of the cleaning solution occurs in the cleaning tank or a separate tank. Meyer maintains his solution by adding chemicals to preserve the original ratio set forth for a clean solution and plating out the iron, irrespective of any limitation as to the amount of iron in the solution. Bodamer fully describes the rejuvenating aspect of appellant’s process.
I therefore find no error in the board’s decision that the alleged differences between appellant’s process and the prior art would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art.