Appeal No. 1996-1158
Application No. 08/077,599
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 6 through 11, 22, 33, 34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Cheng and
Kraus; and
(2) Claims 6 through 11, 13, 22, 33, 34 and 36 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Cheng,
Kraus and Surovikin.
We affirm.
In rejecting all of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the examiner has relied principally on the Cheng
reference. The Kraus reference has been relied on for the
comparative purpose, see Answer, page 3, while the Surovikin
reference has been relied on to establish obviousness of the
subject matter of claim 13, see Answer, page 4.
We find that the Cheng reference relied upon by the
examiner teaches a process for producing carbon black
comprising steps corresponding to the claimed steps (a), (b),
(c) and (e). See column 1, line 57 to column 2, line 33,
column 5 and the Figure. Specifically, the Cheng reference
states at column 1, line 57 to column 2, line 33, that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007