Appeal No. 96-0797
Application No. 08/089,962
The examiner’s reasoning, however, has two flaws. First,
the examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ a Modified Palmrose
analysis, a complicated laboratory technique, as an
alternative on-line method for monitoring the oxidation loss,
when Jankura teaches the desirability for using a less
complicated on-line PH system for monitoring the same.
Second, the examiner has not explained, nor supplied any
evidence to show, how the Modified Palmrose laboratory
technique acknowledged at pages 8 and 9 of the specification
can be implemented on-line with an autotitrator in a flue gas
desulfurization system. Absent such explanation and/or
evidence, we are of the view that the examiner has not carried
the burden of proof. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007