Appeal No. 2001-2650
Application No. 08/808,639
With respect to the rejection of claims 26 and 27, our
comments are set forth below.
On page 6 of the brief, appellants argue that claim 26 and
27 contain the limitations that the temperature of the
absorbent is controlled when ozonized gas is absorbed, and that
that the temperature of the absorbent is not controlled when
the ozone is discharged.
On pages 4-5 of the answer, the examiner recognizes that
Shimizu fails to specifically teach lack of
temperature control in the adsorption/desorption towers upon
desorption, however, the examiner states that it would have
been obvious to have not controlled the temperature during the
desorption step, because Shimizu discloses that the temperature
is increased to desorb the ozone, and if the temperature were
not controlled, it would have increased automatically, thereby
facilitating the release of ozone. We find that the examiner
has not supported this conclusion with evidence in the record.
Furthermore, appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief,
that Shimizu discloses to control temperature both during ozone
absorption and during ozone releasing. Appellants refer to
column 6, lines 38-42 of Shimizu. Appellants state that
accordingly, Shimuzu actually teaches away from not controlling
the temperature of the absorbent during ozone releasing (when
ozone is discharged).
We find that at column 6, beginning at line 38, Shimizu
states “[d]uring the ozone releasing, on the other hand, the
ozone absorption tower 7a and 7b is heated over the ambient
temperature and the inside pressure is considerably lowered
from 8 kg/cm2”. Hence, we agree with appellants’ interpretation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007