Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
reacted gases and makes the process more economically
efficient.” Answer, page 4.
Although the examiner has cited portions of Keefer that
separately disclose a countercurrent purge with the more
adsorbable product and a countercurrent purge with the less
adsorbable product (id., citing col. 7, ll. 35-40, and col.
16, ll. 35-45), the examiner has not presented any convincing
evidence or reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have used these purges together and in the order recited
in claim 1 on appeal. Similarly, although depressurization
and pressurization are both disclosed by Keefer, the examiner
has not established why these steps would be separate and in
the order as recited in claim 1 on appeal.
Additionally, the examiner has not presented any
convincing reason or evidence as to why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined the teachings of the applied
references. See Micro Chemical Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical
Co., 103 F.3d 1538, 1546, 41 USPQ2d 1238, 1244-45 (Fed. Cir.
1997)(The motivation to combine references may come from the
references themselves, the knowledge of those skilled in the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007