Appeal No. 1998-1133
Application 08/382,296
The appellants argue that Dunne’s adsorbent zone is not a
catalyst (reply brief, page 2). Dunne, however, teaches that
a catalytic unit can be placed immediately after the adsorbent
zone and before the primary catalytic unit (col. 10, lines 1-
14).
For the above reasons we conclude that the method recited
in the appellants’ claim 22 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We therefore affirm the rejection of this claim and
the claims which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 4, 7, 8
and 21 over Rudy in view of Dunne and Säufferer, and claims 9-
11 over these references further in view of Abe, are reversed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 14-19 and 22
over Rudy in view of Dunne and Säufferer, and claim 20 over
these references further in view of Abe, are affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007