Appeal No. 1997-2429 Page 5
Application No. 08/323,215
combination of the liquid-based Theuninck process and the
compression step of the Laroche process would not result in
the "cohesive, non-pumpable, non-flowable mixture" that is
further compressed to remove entrained air as set forth in all
the claims under appeal. We agree.
In our view the examiner did not ascertain the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
correctly. Based on our analysis and review of Theuninck and1
the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1 and 21), it
is our opinion that more than the one difference identified by
the examiner exists. In that regard, Theuninck does not teach
or suggest the mixing step recited in paragraph (b) of claims
1 and 21 since Theuninck mixing step forms a thick, flowable
liquid which can be pumped (see column 6, lines 21-22), not
the "cohesive, non-pumpable, non-flowable mixture" recited by
the claims under appeal. Thus, even if the examiner were
correct that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
1After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007