Appeal No. 95-4665
Application No. 08/101,111
concludes that the individual steps recited in the claims on
appeal “taken alone and in of themselves would NOT be
considered novel to one of ordinary skill.” (Answer, pages 4-
5).
It is well settled that we must give effect to all claim
limitations. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214,
217 (CCPA 1976), and cases cited therein. The examiner has
not proposed any factual basis to support the conclusion that
the individual claimed steps “would NOT be considered novel to
one of ordinary skill.” (Answer, page 5). The examiner noted
in the final rejection that Beech shows a stripper 30 which
has the same function as the stripper in appellants’ claims
(Paper No. 6, page 3). However, the examiner has not pointed
to any disclosure or teaching in Beech or Harandi regarding
the treatment steps of the overhead vapor stream coming from
stripper 30, i.e., the steps recited in appealed claim 1
including cooling the overhead vapor stream to provide a
condensed reflux stream, removing the C - light gas components
2
from the condensed reflux stream, recycling the reflux stream
to the upper contact portion of the stripper column, and
recovering a predominantly C recycle stream from the upper
3
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007