Appeal No. 98-0552
Application 08/357,567
d) lifting said regenerated catalyst up said FCC riser
reactor to said injection position of said hydrocarbon feed
[oil] with a flow of catalytically inert gas.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Hettick 2,938,856 May 31, 1960
Hammershaimb et al. 4,479,870 Oct. 30, 1984
The following rejections are before us for consideration:
I. Claims 1-6, 33-37 and 40-43 stand rejected for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Hettick alone.
II. Claims 7-8, 38-39 and 44 stand rejected for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Hettick as
applied in the aforementioned rejection, and further in view
of Hammershaimb et al.
III. Claims 45-52 stand rejected for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Hettick as applied in the
aforementioned rejections, and further in view of admitted
prior art.
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellant
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007