Appeal 2007-0280
Application 10/469,392
The Examiner contends that the process conditions taught by the
references are the same as those recited in the claims, and thus the % of N2O
removed must also be the same (Answer 5-6).
The Examiner contends that the data submitted by Appellants is not
persuasive since the teachings of the prior art anticipate the claimed
temperature range (Answer 6-7).
Accordingly, the issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) does either
Audeh or Swaroop inherently disclose a process of treating N2O as well as
NOx?; (2) are the process conditions taught by either reference the same as
those recited in the claims on appeal?; and (3) is the evidence submitted by
Appellants relevant to the rejections on appeal?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of either Audeh or Swaroop, and Appellants have not
adequately rebutted this prima facie case. Therefore we AFFIRM both
grounds of rejection in this appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Audeh discloses an exhaust gas treatment process useful for the
removal of nitrogen oxides using an iron impregnated zeolite with
pore sizes less than about 7 Angströms as catalyst and ammonia as
reducing agent at 0.75 to 1.25 the stoichiometric amount, with the
reaction accomplished at temperatures of about 230-350º C and a
gas hourly space velocity of about 5000-20,000 hr-1 (abstract; col.
2, ll. 60-67; col. 4, ll. 40-45; and col. 5, ll. 3-26; Answer 3-4);
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013