Appeal 2006-1516
Application 10/025,002
removing the sulfur content. Consequently, it logically follows that
performing the Lapple process with a fluid bed coater at about 500°C, as
taught by the reference, would necessarily retain the sulfur in the carbon
source. As has often been said, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. In re Myers, 401 F.2d 828, 830, 159 USPQ 339, 341 (CCPA 1968).
Manifestly, one of ordinary skill in the art would know the proper
temperature to operate the fluid bed coater of Lapple in order to retain the
sulfur in the carbon source and achieve the benefit of enhanced phosphorus
extraction taught by Galeev.
Moreover, as set forth by the Examiner, Lapple specifically teaches
that “[i]n the event the phosphorus values are to be recovered in the form of
P2O5, it is preferred that the P2O5 be formed by my direct, one-step process”
wherein feed enters the kiln along with free coke (col. 5, ll. 3-5). Based on
the Galeev disclosure of including sulfur in the reaction mix, it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize conventional
sulfur-containing coke as the free coke in the process of Lapple.
Appellants contend in their Reply Brief that “[t]he Examiner has
presented no evidence that the temperature range in the fluid bed coater 36
would not vaporize sulfur” (Reply Br. 1). However, the Examiner has made
the case that the 500°C pretreatment disclosed in Appellants’ own
specification is within the temperature range disclosed by Lapple.
Appellants also maintain that “[t]he Examiner has not indicated any
other place in the Lapple process where the sulfur containing carbon source
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013