Appeal No. 1998-0305
Application 08/385,110
velocity process, to incorporate Thomson’s upwardly increasing
column cross-sectional area in Ohsol’s column. The examiner,
therefore, has not carried the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness of the apparatus recited in the
appellants’ claim 5. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 5 and claim 6 which depends therefrom.
Rejection of claim 7
The examiner does not rely upon Aruga or Ellis for any
teaching which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the
teachings of Ohsol and Thomson. Hence, we reverse the
rejection of claim 7 which, like claim 5 discussed above,
requires that the inner diameter of the tower’s upper section
is greater than that of the lower section.
Moreover, the examiner has not adequately explained why
Aruga or Ellis would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the limitation in claim 7 for which these
secondary references are applied, i.e., the partition walls on
the baseplate at the tower’s uppermost section being lower
than those on the baseplate at the lower section. The
examiner argues that Aruga (col. 8, lines 40-52) and Ellis
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007