Appeal No. 2001-2490
Application No. 09/388,056
produced during the purification would have been deposited on the
acidic material. As a technical matter, appellant asserts that it
would have been more likely that water produced would have boiled
away at the temperatures of the purification (id.). Contrary to
the examiner’s position that Hupp is silent as to the presence of
water in the purification zone effluent (Answer, page 3), Hupp
specifically teaches that the “product leaving the purification
reactor contains ... a small amount of water” (col. 4, ll. 7-11).
Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has not presented any
convincing evidence or reasoning to establish the inherency of
water depositing on the acidic material during the purification.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness in view of the
reference evidence. Therefore we reverse the rejection of claims
12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hupp.
B. The Rejection over Holiday
The examiner finds that Holiday discloses a process of
removing aldehydes contained in a hydrocarbon stream by contacting
the mixture with a spent alumina-silica catalyst under conditions
where the aldehyde will be converted into water and carbon, which
carbon is deposited on the catalyst (Answer, page 4). The examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007