Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
possession of the subject matter in question in claim 1, part
(c), step (3). Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, is reversed.
C. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner finds that “Dandekar teaches in col. 2 line
60-col. 3 line 68, col. 6 lines 25-40, col. 8 lines 20-45 and
col. 10 lines 20-65 reacting steam and methane at 270EC and 5
atm pressure, removing water, pressurizing (which increases
the temperature; PV=nRT) and ultimately passing the effluent
gas stream through a PSA process.” Answer, page 3. The
examiner further finds that “Dandekar differs in not teaching
the reforming temperature, the amount of catalyst or the PSA
separation.” Id. Therefore the examiner applies Keefer to
show the PSA separation and Stönner to show the reforming
temperature. Answer, page 4.
As noted above, it is well settled that the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. See Oetiker, supra. Here the examiner has
not presented any convincing evidence or reasoning that the
separation steps of Keefer are operated isothermally as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007