Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
that the suggested inlet impurity in HP of "less than 10 ppm" amount of CO meets the
2
CO content ranges of claims 7-8 and 20-23, which range from 1 ppm up to at least
2
10,000 ppm CO .
2
With respect to the ratio of 1-10 grams of soda lime per g of CO in the fluid,
2
as in claims 9-10 and 20, note that the suggested 10% loading in HP (i.e. 10 g of CO2
loaded on 100g soda lime) meets this limitation. With respect to the narrower ranges of
2-5 grams soda lime per gram CO as in claims 9-11 and 21-23, note that it would
2
have been obvious to use lesser amounts of soda lime in a CO -removal bed, with the
2
expected result that CO would still be substantially removed. Note that the HP
2
excerpt contemplates twin beds of soda lime in series, so any breakthrough from a first
bed could be caught in a second bed, both operating at the suggested loading levels.
With respect to the temperatures and pressures of claims 16-19 (e.g., 1-50EC
and 1-1700 psig), note that the HP process suggests ambient (25EC) temperature and
1200 psig as operable.
With respect to the exact quantity of water "added" in claims 13-15, this would
be amendable to optimization by routine experimentation, as has been held to be
obvious in In re Aller, et al. 105 USPQ 233 and In re Reni, 164 USPQ 245. (Ans.
pages 8-9)
Given the above teachings, we conclude that the determination of optimum values for the weight
ratio of CO impurity to olefin (claim 7); the weight ratio of soda lime to CO (claims 9); and, the2 2
process temperature and pressure parameters (claims 16 and 18) would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. We also conclude that the determination of optimum values for the weight ratio
of "added" water to olefin (claim 13), would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
especially given the direction in Cheron to maintain the water content of the soda lime substantially
constant in the range from 10 to 30% (col. 4, lines 43-49). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205
USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955).
Page 18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007