Appeal 2007-4230
Application 09/984,339
Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Heil does not teach or
suggest “setting a steam/hydrocarbon mixing ratio of a mixture generated in
a mixture-preparation stage as a function of a temperature of a reformate gas
stream emerging from a CO oxidation stage of a reforming reactor as claim
1 specifies”; hence, the combination of Wiesheu and Heil do not suggest the
subject matter required by rejected claims 1 and 3 (Br. 5).
The issue before us is: Have Appellants identified reversible error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by their assertions in the Brief? We
answer that question in the affirmative and we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
The Examiner bears the initial burden, on review of prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, the Examiner has not established that the combination of the
carbon monoxide oxidation method of Heil with the reforming method of
Wiesheu would have resulted in a process as claimed wherein a
steam/hydrocarbon mixing ratio of the steam/hydrocarbon mixture generated
in a mixture preparation stage, which mixture is introduced into the reformer
of a reforming reactor, is set as a function of a temperature of a reformate
gas stream emerging from a CO oxidation stage of a reforming reactor for
the reasons stated by Appellants in the Brief. While Heil discloses adjusting
the temperature in the CO oxidation multi-stage reactor via metering of
oxygen gas and passive cooling using static mixing structures in addition to
the use of cooling circuits (col. 4, ll. 28-49), the Examiner has not
reasonably established that combining the multi- stage CO reactor of Heil
with the reformer of Wiesheu would have resulted in Appellants’ claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013