Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
Appellant has not responded to this argument. Therefore, based upon this record, we agree with the
examiner that HP and Cheron are properly combinable; and, that Cheron cannot be properly
characterized as being from a non-analogous art.
Secondly, appellant argues Hogan discloses any reference disclosing or suggesting CO2
removal from a non-olefin-containing gas cannot be a proper reference for the claimed invention (Br.
page 14, last sentence). However, as noted by the examiner, "no such statement is seen in Hogan nor
[has been] specifically pointed out by appellants [sic]" (Ans. page 15, last paragraph). Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive.
Appellant next argues soda lime, not a gas, is humidified with water in Cheron (Br. page 15,
first paragraph and paragraph bridging pages 17-18). This argument is factually incorrect. We agree
with the examiner that Cheron explicitly teaches adding water to, i.e., increasing the hygrometric degree
of, the gas to be decarbonated at col. 5, lines 3-6. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, appellant argues the specification (pages 7-9) demonstrates unexpected results,
i.e., a CO capacity as high as 57 weight % when water is added to an ethylene-containing fluid versus
2
only 1.5 weight % in the absence of water addition and when compared to HP which discloses a CO2
capacity or loading of 10% (Br. page 16, paragraph two).
Example I at pages 7-9 of the specification is not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case
of obviousness for the following reasons. First, it appears that the evidence presented in appellant's
Page 16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007