Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
that the Final rejection clearly states that the limitation of "adding water" is met by the
addition of steam at line 4. This has nothing to do with a transfer line exchanger. (Ans.
page 12, paragraph four)
backpedals from his earlier statement
[a]ccording to the figure, water is added to said gaseous stream in a transfer line
exchanger. This cools the mass which is then sent to an aqueous caustic (i.e., NaOH)
washer in order to remove the carbon dioxide. (Ans. page 3, third paragraph from the
bottom)
Suffice to say, to the extent the examiner refers to the addition of steam from line 4 to line 6 as the
"adding" step required by the claims, the examiner has not established that line 6 contains the required
olefin and carbon dioxide.
Based upon this record, we conclude the examiner has not established that Skraba teaches the
first step of the claimed invention, i.e. of adding water to a fluid to form a water-containing fluid
comprising at least one C -C olefin and CO A reference which does not satisfy one limitation of a2 6 2.
claim does not anticipate. Jamesburg Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, 756 F.2d 1556, 225
USPQ 253 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 750 F.2d 1569,
224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The rejection is reversed.
2. Rejection of claims 1-5, 9-11 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over
Skraba in view of Strack
Skraba has been described supra.
Page 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007