Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
required by claim 1, part (c). The examiner has cited
Dandekar as suggesting temperature control or isothermal beds
(Answer, page 3, citing col. 7, ll. 35-45). However, this
disclosure in Dandekar relates only to attempts to “minimize
the temperature increase” in the reactor beds and does not
disclose or suggest isothermal operation (see col. 7, ll. 37-
38).
The examiner cites col. 13, l. 30-col. 14, l. 40 of
Keefer (Figure 8) to show the embodiment of Keefer directed to
the water gas shift reaction (Answer, page 4). However, claim
1, part (c), step (1) calls for reaction conditions sufficient
to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen to carbon monoxide and
water, i.e., the reverse water gas shift (see the
specification, page 1, ll. 11-16, and page 8, ll. 1-10). The
examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified the reaction conditions of Keefer to
attain the reaction conditions required by claim 1 on appeal.
The examiner has also not explained by convincing evidence or
reasoning why the prior art discloses or suggests the
“predetermined time sequences” as required by claim 1 on
appeal. Furthermore, the examiner has merely stated that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007