Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
step (d) of claim 1 if this limitation of step (c) in claim 1
was not met. See the specification, page 34, ll. 17-22.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that there is implicit support for the
language in question in the disclosure as filed. Accordingly,
the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 112. ¶1, is reversed.
C. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under section 103 over
Tsuchiyama taken with Keefer (Answer, page 3). The examiner
finds that Tsuchiyama teaches catalytic CO conversion using
water coolant but fails to teach a catalyst/sorbent mix nor
pressure swing adsorption (PSA) separation (id.). Therefore
the examiner applies Keefer to show the water gas shift
reaction using a sorbent/catalyst mix wherein the products are
separated by PSA using a purge gas with recycling (Answer,
sentence bridging pages 3-4). From these findings, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the
PSA system of Keefer with hydrogen as a sweep gas in the
process of Tsuchiyama because “doing so recovers the non-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007