Appeal No. 2000-1016
Application No. 08/487,629
The subject matter on appeal is represented by claim 14,
set forth below:
14. A process for the oxidation and elimination of H2S
from gas mixtures comprising adding oxygen to the said
mixture to obtain an O2/H2S molar ratio in the mixture
between 0.5:1 to 0.6:1, passing the said gas mixture into
at least one activated carbon bed contained in a reaction
vessel and subjecting the said H2S to the catalytic action
of the activated carbon under reaction conditions which
produce elemental sulfur with minimal production of SO2 so
that the elemental sulfur produced by the reaction is
sorbed by the catalyst while the purified gas is recovered
as product, said reaction conditions being selected from a
temperature range of between about 130°C to about 220°C and
a gas pressure range of between about 500 kPa to 7000 Kpa
the activated carbon being subjected to periodic
regenerations so that the sorbed sulfur is removed
therefrom as another product.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
unpatentability are:
Li 4,196,183 Apr. 1, 1980
Kohl et al. (Kohl) “Gas Purification” 4th edition published by
Gulf Publishing Co. in Houston Texas, U.S.A., 1985, pages 442-
449.
Claims 14, 17, 20, and 22-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kohl.
As a preliminary matter, we note that on page 3 of the
answer, the examiner has objected to claim 14 because the slash
in line 2 of claim 14 should not be subscripted. On page 4 of
the brief, appellants indicate that this minor typographical
error would be corrected when the application is referred back
to the examiner for consideration. The examiner also indicates
on page 3 of the answer that the oath remains objected to
because appellants have not given a post office address.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007