Appeal No. 94-4210
Application 07/932,415
and valve 38 for flow outlet 18 are open when valve 32 for gas
inlet 20, valve 34 for flow inlet 22 and valve 36 for flow outlet
16 are all closed. Note particularly that 16 is a flow outlet,
not an inlet as the examiner finds. Thus, valve 30 is open when
valves 32 and 36 are closed, and valve 30 is closed when valves
32 and 36 are opened. Accordingly, Wertheim does not describe
all the elements of appellants' Claim 10 system, i.e., a single
reactor vessel having a feedstock flow inlet, a first catalyst
bed near the feedstock flow inlet, a gas inlet upstream of the
first catalyst bed arranged to inject gas into the feedstock
flow, a second catalyst bed downstream of the first catalyst bed,
and a gas inlet between the first and second catalyst beds.
Thus, we reverse the examiner's rejections of Claim 10 under 35
U.S.C ~ 102(b) over Wertheim and Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. ~ 103
in view of Wertheim's teaching alone.
Claims 10-12 and 14 stand rejected for obviousness-type
double patenting of Claims 1-5 of Butler. Rather than argue the
merits of the examiner's rejection, appellants indicate that they
(Appellants' Brief, page 8, lines 1-4):
attempted to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome
this rejection during prosecution of this case, but the
terminal disclaimer was rejected by the examiner.
Appellants would still be willing to file a proper
terminal disclaimer given sufficient guidance as to
what the Examiner feels should be required in such a
document.
Under 35 U.S.C. ~ 134, the Board reviews rejections of claims
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007