Appeal No. 1998-3179
Application No. 08/718,696
Appealed claims 1, 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Chao. Claim 11 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Coe.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced
by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed by
appellants.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection over Chao. It
is appellants' position that Chao does not describe a zeolite
adsorbent having a C value of at least equal to 2.9. Appellants
demonstrate at pages 5-7 of their Brief that all the adsorbents
exemplified by Chao have a C value less than the claimed 2.9.
Appellants have also submitted a Declaration under Rule 1.132 by one
of the present inventors in support of this conclusion. According to
appellants, the "Tables clearly demonstrate that the CHAO et al.
reference simply fails to disclose or explicitly or implicitly
zeolites exhibiting C values of at least 2.9 as those claimed by
appellants" (page 7 of Brief).
On the other hand, the examiner, although not disputing
appellants' data, emphasizes that it is the 100% exchanged CaX
adsorbent (labeled 5) of Example 3 of Chao that is relied upon in the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007