Appeal No. 2000-1016
Application No. 08/487,629
We note that any reference in this decision to appellants’
brief concerns Paper No. 23 (not the brief of paper no. 21 which
was indicated as a defective brief).
On page 4 of the brief, appellants indicate that the claims
stand or fall with independent claim 14. Hence we consider only
claim 14 on this appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1999).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer, and below, we will
sustain the above-noted rejection.
Appellants argue that the claimed molar ratio, combined
with the claimed reaction temperature, combined with the claimed
gas pressure, provides for excellent conversion of hydrogen
sulfide, with minimal production of SO2. (brief, page 4-5).
Appellants argue that Li requires a stoichiometric ratio of
about 1.3 to 1.6. (brief, page 6).
The examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized from 0.5 to
0.6 moles of oxygen per mole hydrogen sulfide because Li teaches
the expected advantage of minimizing corrosion of equipment.
(answer, pages 5-6). The examiner further refers to claim 1 of
Li where Li recites adding “at least a stoichiometric amount of
O2”. (answer, page 10).
On page 2 of the reply brief, appellants argue that Li does
not identify the amount of oxygen to be less than 1.3 times the
stoichimetric amount, and thus, the fact that Li’s claim 1 is
broader than the patent’s disclosure, does not provide a
teaching of appellants’ invention as defined in claim 14.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007