Appeal No. 96-1165
Application 08/060,422
of Gorin. We do not find that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness because we
cannot conclude that Gorin’s hydrocarbonaceous solids referred to by the examiner is a “waste by-
product” to be incinerated as called for in appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claims 8 and 32.
Appellant argues that claim 12 is separately patentable because it would not have been obvious
from the teachings of Gorin, Kertamus and Wheelock to avoid water and hydrogen sulfide in the sulfide
feed to prevent contamination of the carbon monoxide which is produced in the formation of elemental
sulfur. Claim 12 requires that the sulfide and oxidizing agent fed into the second reactor is “substantially free
of water and hydrogen sulfide.” The examiner maintains that claim 12 does not patentably distinguish over
Gorin “in as much as [sic, inasmuch as] Gorin does not set forth the presense [sic, presence] of either water
or H S in either the sulfide or oxidizing agent sent to the reactor (please note col. 3, line 64 to col. 4 [sic,
2
missing comma] line 28 of Gorin)” (answer: p. 14). We are in agreement with the examiner. We further
note that Wheelock also does not indicate the presence of water and H S in the sulfur dioxide “off-gas”
2
produced from the oxidation of calcium sulfide. Wheelock discloses that the “off-gas” is “substantially free
of S, H S, etc.” (col. 6, lines 50-55).
2
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007