Appeal No. 95-4644
Application 08/031,430
OPINION
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant
specification and all of the claims on appeal; (2) appellant's
Brief and Reply Brief; (3) the examiner's Answer; and (4) the
prior art references cited and relied on by the examiner.
Having carefully considered these materials, we find
ourselves in agreement with the position succinctly set forth by
appellant in the "argument" sections of the Brief and Reply
Brief. We only add that none of the prior art references relied
on by the examiner would have suggested employing a material that
acts simultaneously as an absorbing medium, an adsorbing medium
and a catalyst carrier, such as an activated carbon, together
with water and a catalyst in an ethylene oxide conversion
process. Nor would these references have suggested rinsing the
material with water in the presence of a catalyst for the purpose
of converting the ethylene oxide into ethylene glycol.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007