Appeal No. 95-4665
Application No. 08/101,111
contact portion of the stripper column for recycle to the
catalytic reactor. Therefore, even if Beech and Harandi were
combined as proposed by the examiner, all of the limitations
of appealed claim 1 would not be disclosed or suggested to the
artisan by the applied prior art.
“Where the legal conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Beech in view of Harandi is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jrg
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007