Appeal 2007-1000
Application 10/315,842
Appellants also maintain that “[t]he Examiner has not indicated any
other place in the Lapple process where the sulfur containing carbon source
would be injected” (Reply Br. 3, second para.). Appellants further maintain
that:
If it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to mix the sulfur-containing carbon source with phosphate
ore an [sic, and] inject it at any other point in the Lapple
process, then it is incumbent upon the Examiner to point out the
specific place in the process where it would be added, and
further why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to do so.
(Reply Br. 3, third para.). However, as noted above, the Examiner
particularly cited Lapple at column 5, lines 3 et seq. for the disclosure of a
preferred method of adding free coke directly to the kiln. As for the
requisite motivation, we emphasize, at the risk of redundancy, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a sulfur-
containing coke for the benefits described by Galeev, as would also have
been motivated to operate the fluid bed coater at about 500°C.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013