Appeal No. 97-4429 Page 3
Application No. 08/404,666
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an air separation
plant. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claims 12 and 17, which appear in the
appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Smith 3,127,260 Mar. 31, 1964
Sunder et al. (Sunder) 5,122,174 June 16, 1992
Collin et al. (Collin) 5,316,628 May 31, 1994
Claims 12, 13, 15 and 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Collin in view of
Smith.
Claims 16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collin in view of Smith and Sunder.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
13, mailed July 3, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007