Appeal No. 1998-2624
Application No. 08/696,578
with a scrubbing solution comprising a metallic salt to form a
scrubbed gaseous stream rich in paraffins and hydrogen and a
scrubbed liquid stream rich in olefins and rich scrubbing
solution; (e) stripping said scrubbed liquid stream in an olefin
stripper to produce a stripped gas stream rich in olefins and a
lean liquid stream..." Similar language is also recited in
appealed claim 23, the only other independent claim.
The examiner relies on Mehra’s abstract and Mehra’s
discussion of the prior art. (Examiner’s answer, page 5.)
However, the examiner admits that Mehra does not describe the
use of a scrubbing solution comprising a metallic salt as
recited in appealed claims 1 and 23. (Id.) Notwithstanding
this difference, the examiner held as follows:
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art to modify the Mehra et al process in view of the
teachings of Dunlop et al to remove the desired
olefins because Dunlop et al disclose that the
solution comprising cuprous nitrate and pyridine is
not expensive if compared with other materials (col.
1, lines 34-47). [Id.]
According to the examiner, "Mehra et al do not limit what kind
of absorbing solvent can be used for their demethanization
absorber (column 3, lines 25-31) although a physical solvent is
preferred (column 7, lines 28-32)." (Id. at page 8.) The
examiner further explains:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007