Appeal No. 1997-1732
Application No. 08/236,895
of the remaining claims on appeal. Our reasoning is set forth
below.
It is the examiner’s basic position that Sabatka
discloses a solvent recovering method of the type defined by
the independent claims on appeal except for the here claimed
feature relating to use of a second or surrogate solvent but
that Nelson discloses use of a steam-liquid mixture which
corresponds to this claimed feature. According to the
examiner, it would have been obvious for one with an ordinary
level of skill in the art to provide the method of Sabatka
with the steam-liquid mixture feature of Nelson in order to2
obtain improved flowability, reduced viscosity and enhanced
solvent recovery taught by Nelson (e.g., see lines 8 through
23 in column 4).
In their brief, the appellants have not challenged with
any reasonable specificity the examiner’s proposal to combine
the teachings of Sabatka and Nelson. Instead, the appellants
argue that Nelson’s teaching does not correspond to the
claimed feature under consideration. In particular, it is the
2Nelson also discloses using hydrocarbons such as methane
or natural gas rather than steam (e.g., see lines 45 through
53 in column 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007