Appeal No. 96-1165
Application 08/060,422
20). Both Kertamus and Gorin disclose chemical reactions for producing elemental sulfur. The Gorin
process is more complex than the Kertamus process (Gorin: col. 4, lines 38-64; Kertamus: col. 2, lines 58-
64). Since the Kertamus reaction is simpler for reasons already give, supra, it would appear to be obvious
that the amount of capital equipment and fuel requirements would be reduced. Moreover, the efficiency
of the process would be improved since the by-product of the Kertamus reaction, carbon monoxide, can
be reused, i.e., it can be recycled to reduce calcium sulfate, thus reducing the amount of non-recycled
carbon monoxide required from other sources. Accordingly, we find that Kertamus is analogous art within
the test set forth above. In addition, we find that the teachings of Kertamus logically would have
commended itself to an inventor*s attention in considering his problem since the chemical reaction to
produce elemental sulfur is a one step as opposed to the two step process for converting sulfur dioxide to
sulfur as disclosed by Gorin. See In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577-78, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
Appellant argues that claims 10 and 15 are separately patentable. Appellant points to the following
definition of circulating fluidized bed on page 12, lines 14-20 of his specification:
A circulating fluidized bed reactor is defined as one in which the reactor bed is pneumati-
cally conveyed through the reactor by a gas stream. Gas velocities in the circulating
fluidized bed reactor must be above the particle terminal velocities. Solids are continuously
removed from the top of the reactor and circulated on to the next stage of the system.
Appellant contends the “fluidized bed reaction such as used by Gorin or Wheelock is defined as a reactor
system in which gas passes upwardly through a bed of fine particles causing the bed to expand and behave
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007