Appeal 2007-3383
Application 10/452,939
less of O2 in the feed in view of Tellier’s disclosure that “the object of the
Tellier invention “is to overcome the disadvantage of the sensitivity of
CLAUS catalysts to oxygen . . . in which the traditional catalyst for sulphur
production is protected against the possible presence of oxygen in the
treated gas”” (Answer 8).
Appellants separately argue independent claims 1 and 38. Accordingly,
dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-31, and 34, which directly or ultimately
depend on claim 1, stand or fall with claim 1. Dependent claims 39-42,
which directly or ultimately depend on claim 38, stand or fall with claim 38.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS OF INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND
38 OVER TELLIER IN VIEW OF BURMASTER AND MICHEL
Appellants argue that neither Tellier, Burmaster, nor Michel discloses
“a reaction zone comprising two reactors in series, each reactor containing a
bed with a first catalyst” or “each of said reactors further comprises a bed
with a catalyst A . . . wherein in each reactor said first catalyst is disposed
upstream of catalyst A and acts as a protective layer for catalyst A” as
recited in claims 1 and 38 (Br. 3). While acknowledging that Tellier
discloses the use of a single catalyst bed acting as a protective layer,
Appellants further argue that there would have been no motivation to add at
least one additional protective layer catalyst bed in such processes because
Tellier discloses that a single protective layer catalyst bed is sufficient (Br.
4). Appellants also argue that since Tellier discloses in Example 1 that
99.35 to 99.8% of the oxygen is removed, it would be unnecessary and
uneconomical to add additional deoxidation catalyst due to the added cost
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013