Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
Claims 1-25 (now claims 1-3, 5-9 and 12-25) in copending Application no. 08/162,241 are
directed to a process for removing carbon dioxide from a fluid which comprises at least one C -C
2 6
olefin and carbon dioxide by contacting the fluid with a composition comprising (i) an alkali metal
hydroxide, an alkaline earth metal hydroxide or combinations of two or more thereof, and (ii) an
inorganic oxide which is alumina and/or silica, wherein the weight ratio of (i)/(ii) is from about 0.1:1 to
about 5:1.
According to the examiner, none of the claims of the '241 application recite adding water to an
olefin-containing fluid. However,
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have added water to the gas treated by the copending application prior to
its contact with soda lime, because Cheron teaches that adding water to the gas prior to
its contact with soda lime humidifies the soda lime and hence enhances CO absorption
2
such as is desired by the copending application.
Note, with respect to the soda lime limitations of the instant claims, that the
claims of copending '241 clearly suggest combinations of calcium hydroxide and sodium
hydroxide (see, for example, claim 5 of copending '241) and thus the process of the
instant claims limited to soda lime are also not patentably distinct from those of '241.
(Ans. page 10, paragraph three)
Appellant argues col. 3, lines 7-15 of Cheron does not disclose or suggest supplying water to
the soda lime directly from the gas being treated; Cheron is non-analogous art and, therefore, not
combinable with the '241 application; and, claim 12 is patentably distinct from claims 1-11 and 13-25
because claim 12 specifically recites a water-saturated fluid (Br. page 20, paragraph three through page
22, paragraph two). Finally, appellant argues
Page 20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007