Appeal No. 96-2354
Application No. 08/147,086
outer walls of Anderson are imperforate and the sides are
screens, which is the opposite of that required by claim 15.
According to the examiner, Yasui teaches a radial flow
reactor having a plurality of removable catalyst containers
(Answer, page 4). While we agree that the flow through the
catalyst is radial, we do not agree that the catalyst
containers are removable. Yasui constructs the large
cylindrical “basket” that contains the catalyst of a plurality
of units which are “attached and secured to each other”
(translation, page 3; Figure 2). There is no explicit
teaching that these are removable, once attached together, nor
in our view would one of ordinary skill in the art have
understood this to be the case. Therefore, the only
suggestion to modify the Anderson system by providing
removable catalyst containers is found in the hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure.
This, of course, is not a proper basis upon which to construct
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
While Koike teaches removing containers of catalyst from
its operating location in an exhaust gas passage, a feat which
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007