Appeal No. 96-1188
Application No. 08/240,800
passing the gas into an aqueous sulfide solution which
ultimately forms hydrogen sulfide gas, removing the hydrogen
sulfide from the reactor, absorbing additional sulfur dioxide
gas in the solution to form bisulfite, and removing the
bisulfite-containing solution from the reactor.
Appealed claims 23-31 and 33-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Canada '378 in view
of Talonen and Strong. In addition, claims 23-44 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Canada '378 in view of Talonen and Strong in further view of
Miller.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellants that the prior
art relied upon by the examiner fails to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
In our view, the examiner has not established that the
collective teachings of Canada '378, Talonen, Strong and
Miller teach or suggest the manipulative steps of the claimed
process, namely, (1) forming hydrogen sulfide gas by absorbing
sulfur dioxide into an aqueous sulfide solution, (2) removing
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007