Appeal No. 1999-1199
Application 08/695,947
the applied prior art does not establish the prima facie
obviousness of claims 21 through 28. Therefore the rejection
of all claims on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
Turning to the claimed subject matter on appeal, we note
that the first clause of claim 21 after the preamble clearly
states that the appealed subject matter is an oil and gas
separator claimed in combination with a hydrocarbon production
system. Thus, notwithstanding the content of the prior art
references to Kidwell and Brahler, since these two patents do
not disclose or suggest the claimed hydrocarbon production
system, the examiner’s obviousness rejection can not be
sustained.
It is noted that the examiner in the final rejection
clearly stated the background for determining obviousness.
This analysis includes ascertaining the differences between
the prior art and the claims at issue. If the examiner had
conducted such an analysis, she would have realized that a
prime difference between
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007