Appeal No. 1998-2242
Application No. 08/430,937
mass transfer tray without using conventional supporting
beams. Thus, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify the prior art method disclosed on pages 5
and 6 and Figure 2 by providing for
one or more mass transfer tray panels a plurality of
stiffeners, as taught by Thrift, without using additional
support beams to support the contact tray.
Claims 3 through 6, 10 and 12 through 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over DiNicolantonio and
Thrift and the admitted prior art, as in the previous
rejection, further in view of either Matsumoto or Kohn.
According to the examiner, Kohn teaches a method for
supporting a contact tray by providing additional reinforcing
stiffeners in the form of a continuous orthogonal grill. On
the other hand, Matsumoto is said to provide a reinforcement
grill of continuous orthogonal shape to provide support for a
large panel. The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify the admitted prior art with either
DiNicolantonio or Thrift as discussed above, further in view
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007