Appeal No. 94-4210
Application 07/932,415
(gasoline) into flow inlet 3 of the first reactor vessel (Gross,
col. 5, line 2);
(4) a second conduit 2 for introducing a gas (steam) into
flow inlet 3 of the first reactor vessel upstream of catalyst
bed 5 therein (Gross, col. 5, line 1); and
(5) a third conduit 8, for introducing a gas (air) into
flow inlet 7 of the second reactor vessel 9 upstream of catalyst
bed 10 therein (Gross, col. 6, lines 25-29).
If the catalyst Gross describes is a reduction catalyst
capable of "reduction of phenylacetylene in styrene," as is
required of the Claim 12 system, Gross reasonably appears to
describe a system having each and every structural and chemical
element of the system appellants claim. We not only find that
the catalyst forming Gross' catalyst bed is a reduction catalyst,
e.g., it facilitates "hydrogenating splitting of hydrocarbons,"
Gross' catalyst reasonably appears to be chemically and
physically the same as the reduction catalysts described in
appellants' specification (Specification, page 12, first full ~).
In short, Gross reasonably appears to describe a reduction
system identical to a system defined by appellants' Claim 12.
While we do not doubt that "the intended use and specified
use in the claims can distinguish claim structure over prior art
structure" (Appellants' Brief, page 7, lines 8-9), the functional
language of Claim 12 does not appear to distinguish the system
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007