Appeal 2007-3383
Application 10/452,939
and complexity (Br. 6). Appellants contend that Tellier only discloses
placing a single bed of protective catalyst (F) before the traditional reactors
containing the traditional catalysts (A) (i.e., F-A-A-A arrangement) such that
Tellier does not teach using a series of reactors containing both the
protective catalyst (F) followed by the traditional catalyst (A) in each reactor
(i.e., F-A-F-A arrangement) (Br. 4-5).
Appellants attach to the Brief in the Evidence Appendix a Declaration
of Slavik Kasztelan (the Kasztelan Declaration) filed on October 11, 2005 as
part of a response to the Examiner’s Office Action. Appellants argue that
the Kasztelan Declaration establishes a “significantly improved result in the
conversion of CS2” by using the claimed F-A-F-A catalyst arrangement
instead of the prior art F-A catalyst arrangement. Appellants argue that the
Kasztelan Declaration is commensurate with the claimed invention because
the evidence provided in the Kasztelan Declaration is “representative of the
advantage of the claimed invention over the closest prior art on the primary
point of novelty [i.e., using a F-A-F-A catalyst arrangement instead of single
preliminary oxidation step as disclosed by Tellier]” (Br. 7). Appellants also
contend that the Kazstelan Declaration compares the claimed invention to
the closest prior art, Tellier, in that the F-A catalyst arrangement represented
by “Case 1” in the Kasztelan Declaration is representative of Tellier’s
disclosed invention (Br. 7-8).
Regarding the recitation in claim 38 that the oxygen content of the
feed is 200 ppm or less, Appellants argue that the prior art fails to disclose
such an oxygen content for the feed gas (Br. 8-9).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013