Appeal 2007-3383
Application 10/452,939
3. Claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 23-27, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Tellier in view of Burmaster, Michel and Voirin.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Tellier discloses all that
is in claim 1, except for two reactors in series and the feed containing 50-
50,000 volume ppm of benzene, toluene and/or xylenes (Answer 5). The
Examiner finds that Burmaster discloses that it is known in the sulphur
recovery art that aromatic hydrocarbons such as toluene, benzene and
xylenes contaminate catalysts and that it is generally desirable to decrease
the feed concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons to about 200 volume ppm
(Burmaster, col. 3, ll. 4-26; col. 7, ll. 6-9) (Answer 5-6). Moreover, the
Examiner finds that Michel discloses that it is known in the sulphur recovery
art that the Claus process uses a series of catalytic stages and condensers
(Michel, col. 1, ll. 35-45) (Answer 6-7).
Based on these findings the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to minimize the amount of benzene, toluene and xylenes in the
feed gas as disclosed by Burmaster and to use more than one reactor in
series as taught by Michel with Tellier’s process of recovering sulphur
because Tellier discloses using several reactors in series and to avoid
contaminating the catalyst (Answer 6 and 7).
The only difference between claim 1 and claim 38 is the added
recitation that the “feed contains 200 ppm or less of O2.” Accordingly, the
Examiner applies the same motivation as noted above with regard to claim 1
to the rejection of claim 38 over Tellier in view of Burmaster and Michel.
The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious in the
combination of Tellier in view of Burmaster and Michel to have 200 ppm or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013