Appeal No. 1998-1217
Application No. 08/405,599
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 21-23 but not the § 103 rejection of
claims 1-20.
Each of the appealed process claims 1-20 requires heating
substantially water-saturated coal particles to a temperature
greater than about 100°C under a pressure sufficient to prevent
water in the feed from boiling. As correctly pointed out by the
Appellants in their briefs, the references applied by the
Examiner in her rejection of these claims contain no teaching or
suggestion concerning this claim requirement. More
specifically, Dick contains no disclosure regarding any type of
heating step. While the Phillips and Beaudequin references
disclose processes which include a step of heating to
temperatures above the boiling point of water, these references
contain no teaching or suggestion of heating coal particles to
these temperatures under a pressure sufficient to prevent water
in the coal feed from boiling as here claimed.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable over Dick
in view of Phillip and Beaudequin'570 and Beaudequin'571.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007