Appeal No. 1997-2099
Application No. 08/233,468
absorbent compositions of Nonaka as asserted by the Examiner, the need for the
composition to contain lithium hydroxide and lithium molybdenum, as presented by
Nonaka, would have been eliminated. The Examiner has not provided an explanation of
the effect of lithium hydroxide and lithium molybdenum on an absorbent composition
which does not contain zinc chloride. The mere fact that the prior art could be modified
as proposed by the Examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). The Examiner must explain why the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84. The Examiner has not provided such an explanation. The
rejection of claims 1 to 10, 17 and 18 is reversed.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Nonaka, Rockenfeller and Ohuchi. (Examiner’s Answer,
page 5). The Examiner relies on Ohuchi and Nonaka for the reasons presented in the
rejection of claims 1 to 10, 17 and 18. The Examiner acknowledges Rockenfeller does
not disclose the absorption composition required by the claims. (Answer, page 5). The
Examiner adds Rockenfeller to the combination of Ohuchi and Nonaka for the
disclosure of triple effect absorption cycle apparatus which contains an aqueous
absorption fluid. The disclosure of a triple effect absorption cycle apparatus which
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007