Appeal No. 96-1165
Application 08/060,422
groupings of the claims" (answer: p. 2, ¶ 5). We find that appellant has presented reasons for the separate
patentability of claims 8, 10, 12, 15 and 32 on pages 31-35 of the brief. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9, 11,
13, 14, 16-31 and 33-35 will stand or fall with claim 1 and claims 8, 10, 12, 15 and 32 will each be
considered to the extent that separate patentability has been argued. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ
67, 70 (CCPA 1979) .
The process set forth in claim 1 is directed to the recovery of sulfur from a metal sulfate. The
process comprises (a) reducing the metal sulfate with a reducing agent comprising carbon monoxide to form
sulfur dioxide, (b) reducing sulfur dioxide with carbonaceous matter such as char or coke to produce
elemental sulfur and carbon monoxide, and (c) recycling the carbon monoxide to step (a). According to
appellant's specification, step (a) involves first reducing the metal sulfate to the metal sulfide in a first reactor
using BTU fuel gas and then feeding the metal sulfide to a second reactor to oxidize the metal sulfide with2
air to form a metal oxide and sulfur dioxide (see appellant’s Figure; specification: p. 8, line 35 to p. 10, line
23).
Appellant argues that (i) the examiner “has imposed too high a level of skill to the person of
ordinary skill in making the determination of obviousness” (brief: p. 10-11); (ii) the examiner has
erroneously rejected claims 2-11, 13-17, 22, 23, 27-29, 31 and 32 on the basis of claim 1, step (a), over
According to appellant, BTU fuel gas comprises a mixture of ethane, methane, hydrogen and carbon monoxide2
(specification: p. 12-13).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007