Appeal 2007-0280
Application 10/469,392
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Audeh US 5,482,692 Jan. 09, 1996
Swaroop EP 0 756 891 A1 Feb. 05, 1997
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 14, 16-18, and 20-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Audeh (Answer 3).
Claims 14, 16-18, 20-24, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Swaroop (Answer 4).1
Appellants contend that both references disclose only the reduction of
NOx, and even if one assumes an inherent disclosure of an amount of N2O in
these references, there is no disclosure of any process conditions for N2O
removal (Br. 4).
Appellants contend that the evidence submitted shows that the
temperature range recited in claim 14 is most important for obtaining the
desired results (Br. 5).
Appellants also contend, with regard to claims 17 and 18, that the
prior art does not teach or suggest at least 50%, let alone 70% or 80%, of the
N2O is decomposed in the reaction zone (Br. 10).
The Examiner contends that the process gases treated by the
references are the same as those treated by Appellants, and thus at least
some N2O must be present in the feed gas (final Office action dated Sep. 16,
2005, pp. 2-3).
1 The Examiner inadvertently includes claim 25 in the statement of this rejection (Answer 4). However,
claim 25 was not included in the corresponding rejection in the final Office action dated Sep. 16, 2005,
page 10. In the discussion of page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner does not discuss the rejection of claim
25. Therefore we presume that claim 25 was not included in this ground of rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013