Appeal No. 1997-0664
Application No. 08/280,945
a problem even though the remedy may be obvious once the
source of the problem is identified. This is part of the
'subject matter as a whole’ which should always be considered
in determining the obviousness of an invention under 35 U.S.C.
103.”).
Moreover, it is our view that the prior art does not
establish the requisite reasonable expectation of success in
modifying Holley’s process in the manner as suggested by the
examiner. Specifically, we note that Burton uses urea in the
context of a conventional combustion flue gas. By contrast,
in Holley, the environments in the Venturi scrubber 17 and
reaction chamber 18 contain chemicals not normally present in
plain combustion flue gas, including highly acidic compounds
such as hydrochloric acid. Although the examiner relies on
Jackson for suggesting “the feasibility of having a mixture of
urea/acid solution” (answer, page 6), we agree with the
appellants (brief, page 10) that Jackson does not teach urea
in combination with hydrochloric acid. Nor does Jackson 3
teach or suggest that urea would work in a gas-liquid type
environment of the type described in Holley. Thus, nothing in
3Jackson teaches the use of urea in combination with
nitric acid (column 4, lines 3-14). Further, Jackson
describes the use of nitric acid as an alternative to using
hydrochloric or sulfuric acid (column 5, lines 40-52).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007