Appeal No. 1997-1733
Application 08/248,062
(answer, page 6). This argument is not well taken because the
examiner does not explain, and it is not apparent, where
Birbara discloses the required means for maintaining a
difference between the pressure of the gas and the pressure of
the liquid absorbent.
For the above reasons, the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation of
the invention recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-15, 17, 18
and 21-23. Consequently, we reverse the rejection of these
claims.
The examiner does not rely upon Schofield or Babcock for
any teaching which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Birbara, or explain why Birbara would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, means for maintaining a
difference between the gas pressure and the liquid absorbent
pressure. Hence, we reverse the rejections of claims 5 and 19
over Birbara in view of Schofield and claims 9, 16 and 20 over
Birbara in view of Babcock.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007