Appeal No. 1997-1732
Application No. 08/236,895
of the solvent reusing step of dependent claims 29 and 35.
This argument is clearly erroneous. Both Sabatka (e.g., see
the Abstract) and Nelson (e.g., see lines 44 through 46 in
column 3) expressly teach the step of reusing recovered
solvent. As for the “simultaneously” feature of dependent
claims 22 and 30, Nelson explicitly discloses this feature
(e.g., see patent claim 1), and the appellants’ assertion to
the contrary is clearly erroneous. Finally, although we have
fully considered the appellants’ viewpoint, the lower cost
feature of dependent claim 38 would have been suggested by
Nelson (e.g., patentee’s steam unquestionably would cost less
than the desired solvent to be recovered), and similarly the
pump feature of dependent claim 39 would have been suggested
by Nelson (e.g., see element 26 in Figure 1 and the disclosure
relating thereto).
In summary, we have vacated the examiner’s section 103
rejection of appealed claim 28 as being unpatentable over
Sabatka and Nelson. However, because the record before us
reflects a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
remaining claims on appeal and because the appellants have
proffered no rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness, we will
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007