Appeal No. 96-2884
Application No. 08/181,997
Okamura alone or in combination with Stephens teaches the addition of a carbon gas to the
first step to convert an iron feed material to metallic iron product. Okamura specifically
employs a reducing agent containing no carbon in the first step where he reduces the iron
feed material to an iron product. Stephens employs hydrogen along with other gases to
directly convert the iron oxide to iron carbide. Hence, neither Okamura nor Stephens
provides any suggestion or motivation to add carbon gas to a step of reducing iron
oxyhyroxides or iron oxides to a metallic iron product.
As to the remaining claims, 1, 3-26, and 28-40, we will affirm the rejection of
the claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Okamura alone or in combination
with Stephens.
Appellant urges that Okamura does not suggest the use of a gas in the second
step of the two-step process that contains carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide,
hydrogen gas and methane (claim 1). We disagree. Initially we note that claim 23, requires
carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide and methane. Claim 23 does not require the
presence of hydrogen gas although it does not exclude it by virtue of the term “comprising.”
In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981). As noted supra,
Okamura specifically shows the individual use of carbon monoxide (example 1) and methane
(example 3), in the second step of his process and he further identifies these particular
reducing and carbonizing agents as preferred. (col. 3, lines 16-20). Okamura also teaches
that reducing and carbonizing agents may be used in combination and demonstrates the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007