Appeal No. 1998-2624
Application No. 08/696,578
I. Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 13, 20, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mehra in view of
Dunlop. (Examiner’s answer, pages 4-6.)
II. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mehra in view of Dunlop and further
in view of Rupp. (Id. at page 6.)
III. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mehra in view of Dunlop and further in view of
Montgomery. (Id. at page 7.)
IV. Claims 14 through 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Mehra in view of Dunlop
and further in view of Lendle. (Id.)
We reverse the aforementioned rejections for reasons which
follow.
Under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness rests on the examiner. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). In this case, it is our determination that the
examiner has not met the initial burden of proof.
As pointed out by the appellants (appeal brief, page 8),
appealed claim 1 recites the steps of "(d) scrubbing said
hydrogenated washed compressed gas stream in an absorber tower
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007