Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
why adding more process steps would have been more
“economically efficient.”
The examiner has applied Stönner and Kikuchi to show the
reforming temperature and a noble metal steam reforming
catalyst, respectively (Answer, page 4). Accordingly, these
references do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above with
regard to Dandekar and Keefer.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that the examiner has not presented a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Therefore the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-17 and
19 under section 103 over Dandekar taken with Keefer and
Stönner and claims 10 and 18 under section 103 over these
references further in view of Kikuchi are reversed.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2,
is reversed. The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, ¶1, is reversed. The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-17 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dandekar taken
with Keefer and Stönner is reversed. The rejection of claims
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007