Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
Appellant argues
the HP excerpt as well as the combination of HP and Cheron does not suggest these
parameters and the amount of water in claims 13-15 would improve the CO removal
2
from an olefin fluid if water is added to the fluid before fluid enters a soda lime. (Br.
page 18, paragraph two)
For the same reasons set forth in § 4a. above, we find the argued "unexpected results" lacks sufficient
probative value to overcome the rejection.
c. Claim 12
As to claim 12, the examiner accepts appellant's argument that claim 12 is separately patentable
(Ans. page 2). Having accepted that appellant is separately arguing claim 12, the examiner fails to
present any reasoning and/or evidence as to why the references disclose or suggest the limitation
"wherein said water-containing fluid is saturated with water." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over HP in view of Cheron.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-25 is sustained; the rejection of claim 12 is reversed.
5. Provisional rejection of claims 1-25 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double-patenting over claims 1-25 of copending Application no. 08/162,241
in view of Cheron.
At the outset, we note that appellant has indicated that claim 12 does not stand or fall together
with claims 1-11 and 13-25 because claim 12 specifically calls for a water-saturated, olefin-containing
fluid (Br. page 4).
Cheron has been described supra.
Page 19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007