Ex parte ZISMAN - Page 21




               Appeal No. 97-3640                                                                                                  
               Application No. 08/406,272                                                                                          


                       as disclosed in Ventriglio (U.S. 3,619,130; of record; Col. 1, lines 44-47), alkali                         
                       hydroxides are subject to moisture attack with subsequent caking thus severely limiting                     
                       (CO  adsorption) capacity.  The present invention, as claimed, specifically recites                         
                           2                                                                                                       
                       adding water to an oxygen-containing compound such as sodium hydroxide.                                     
                       According to the Ventriglio teaching, the claimed invention cannot have much capacity                       
                       for CO  removal.  However, as discussed above, the present invention shows 57%                              
                              2                                                                                                    
                       CO  removal capacity.  The claimed invention is therefore surprising.  The Examiner                         
                          2                                                                                                        
                       should have considered Ventriglio in favor of appellant's claims which are patentable in                    
                       view of Ventriglio disclosure.  (Br. page 22, paragraph three)                                              

                       There is nothing of record to indicate that the examiner has addressed the teachings of                     

               Ventriglio.  Where appellant has come forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by                       

               experiment, prior art references, or arguments, the entire merits of the matter are to be reweighed.  In            

               re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  Therefore, the issue is not ripe for a                    

               decision on appeal.  Accordingly, we vacate the provisional rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-25 under                

               the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double-patenting over claims 1-25 (now 1-3, 5-9                 

               and 12-25) of copending Application no. 08/162,241 in view of Cheron.  If prosecution is resumed on                 

               the subject matter of these claims in a continuing application, the examiner should revisit this issue.  In         

               so doing, the examiner should take care to consider and respond to appellant's rebuttal in its entirety.            

                       The examiner accepts appellant's argument that claim 12 is separately patentable (Ans. page 2).             

               Having accepted that appellant is separately arguing claim 12, the examiner fails to present any                    

               reasoning and/or evidence as to why the references disclose or suggest the limitation "wherein said                 

               water-containing fluid is saturated with water."  Therefore,  we reverse the rejection of claim 12 under            


                                                             Page 21                                                               





Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007