Appeal 2007-0295
Application 09/051,565
(4) Perry teaches the advantages and disadvantages of packed
columns and plate columns (pp. 18-19 to 18-22);
(5) Perry teaches that the typical packed column is randomly filled
with packing material, operated under counterflow conditions,
with a support plate for the packing material, and a liquid-
distributing device to provide effective irrigation of the packing
(p. 18-19);
(6) Perry discloses various types of support plates, including ones
with corrugations and orifices (pp. 18-25 to 18-27; Figures 18-46
to 18-48) whereby with countercurrent type of support plate the
free area for gas flow can range up to 90% of the column cross-
sectional area (p. 18-26); and
(7) Perry discloses various types of liquid distributors, desiring a
device that “spreads the liquid uniformly across the top of the
packing” (p. 18-27), including an orifice-type distributor with a
plurality of orifices (perforations) and chimneys (risers) (p. 18-28;
see Figure 18-51).
It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant’s specification
may be used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention. See
In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975).
It is also axiomatic that consideration of the prior art cited by the Examiner
may include consideration of the admitted prior art found in an applicant’s
specification. See In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013