Appeal No. 1997-1733
Application 08/248,062
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Birbara. Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Birbara in view of Schofield, and claims
9, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Birbara in view of Babcock.1
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Both of appellants’ independent claims require a pressure
control means for maintaining a difference in pressure between
the gas and liquid absorbent within a range so that an
interface between the gas and liquid absorbent is immobilized
at a membrane separating the gas and the liquid absorbent.
The examiner argues that whatever produces Birbara’s
1 The statement of the rejection over Birbara in view of
Babcock in the answer states that the rejection is of claims
9-16 and 20 rather than claims 9, 16 and 20 as stated in the
final answer, we consider the “9-16” to be a typographical
error and the rejection to be of claims 9, 16 and 20 as stated
in the final rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007