Appeal No. 94-2855
Application 07/887,404
Appealed claims 27 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, fourth paragraph. Claim 27 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based upon an original
specification that does not provide descriptive support for the
claimed subject matter. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. In addition, the
appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
(1) Claims 14, 17-19, 26, 27, 30-34, 37-39 and 45 over Kniel
in view of Sze;
(2) Claims 15, 16, 28, 29, 35 and 36 over Kniel in view of
Sze and Yan;
(3) Claims 20, 21 and 40 over Kniel in view of Sze and
Oleck;
(4) Claims 22-25 and 41-44 over Kniel in view of Sze, Oleck
and Rubin.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellant that the prior art
applied by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
Kniel, the primary reference in all of the examiner's
rejections, discloses a process of removing acid gases from a
gaseous stream by contacting the stream with an aqueous
alkanolamine solution of the kind used by appellant. The aqueous
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007