Appeal No. 1998-1219
Application 08/419,317
6-12), where the second end of the adsorbent bed is at a
higher temperature than the first end (col. 8, ll. 1-5; claim
1, step (I)). The term “thermal coupling” appears in col. 17,
ll. 33 and 54-55, but there is no disclosure or suggestion
that the adsorbent beds are operated isothermally.
Accordingly, the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by a proper factual basis.
Additionally, although the examiner has cited portions of
Keefer that separately disclose a countercurrent purge with
the more adsorbable product and a countercurrent purge with
the less adsorbable product (Answer, page 3, citing col. 7,
ll. 35-40, and col. 16, ll. 35-45), the examiner has not
presented any convincing evidence or reasoning why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used these purges
together in the order recited in claim 1 on appeal. The
examiner’s citation of col. 20, ll. 40-48 and 60-68, of Keefer
does not show the “coupled” purges as argued by the examiner
nor as recited in claim 1 on appeal (id.). Similarly,
although depressurization and pressurization are both
disclosed by Keefer, the examiner has not established why
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007