Appeal No. 1997-4422
Application 08/269,797
applied to claims 24, 26, 28-34 and 38 above, and further in
view of Nowitzki and Japanese Patent 64-15135.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
no. 14, mailed March 8, 1997), for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper no. 13, filed March 10, 1997), for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to every applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we reverse the
rejections made by the examiner.
I. The Art Rejections
As correctly pointed out by appellants throughout their
brief, none of the art references teach or suggest their
claimed three stage process for ammonia decomposition, in the
claimed sequence. Claim 24 requires a three stage process, in
the sequence claimed. Claim 38 recites (1) a water-gas-shift
and methanation stage and (2) an ammonia decomposition stage,
in the sequence claimed, which is also not taught or suggested
by the applied art.
The examiner argues that appellants “do not truly have a
three stage process for ammonia removal”. (answer, page 7).
We disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of appellants’
claims in this regard. Claim 24 requires a three stage
process, in the sequence claimed. While we recognize that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007