Appeal No. 1997-3383
Application No. 08/310,052
packing.
Appellants correctly point out that the Maegerlein
reference, the examiner's "primary reference," is directed to
removing organic contaminants such as isocyanates from gases
and vapors through the use of materials such as activated
charcoal, or activated alumina for collecting the
contaminants. Accordingly, the inventive method of the
Maegerlein reference provides a packed tower scrubber using an
active filter material, rather than excluding such an active
material, as required by the presently claimed process.
However, as the examiner makes clear in his answer, the
portion of the Maegerlein reference relied upon to support the
stated obviousness rejection is comparative Example 18 of
Maegerlein which does not use an active filter. The examiner
argues that all disclosures in the prior art including this
comparative example must be considered in the determination of
the question of obviousness.
Essentially, for the reasons set forth in appellants'
brief, we do not sustain the examiner's stated rejection of
the appealed claims for obviousness. Appellants' claimed
invention, as emphasized above, involves a process of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007