Appeal No. 1998-3179
Application No. 08/718,696
rejection. According to the examiner, "[t]hat 100% exchanged CaX
does have a C value of greater than 2.9" (page 4 of Answer, lines 6
and 7). It seems that although the examiner recognizes that
appellants' Brief, at page 6, shows that the C value of CaX is less
than 2.9, the examiner reasons that if appellants' Example II shows
that a 95% exchanged CaX has a C value of 2.9, so must the 100%
exchanged CaX of Chao.
The problem with the examiner's reasoning is that appellants'
data and declaration provide evidence that the 100% exchanged CaX
adsorbent of Chao has a C value of less than 2.9, i.e., 1.87.
Accordingly, while it would seem from the present record that CaX
adsorbents having a C value of at least equal to 2.9 were known in
the art, the evidence of record weighs in favor of appellants'
position that the adsorbents described in Chao do not exhibit the C
parameter recited in the appealed claims.
The co-reference of the examiner's § 103 rejection is relied
upon for the obviousness of the claim 11 recitation of the gas
mixture including hydrogen and nitrogen and, consequently, does not
remedy the deficiency of Chao discussed above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's decision
rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007