Appeal No. 2001-2650
Application No. 08/808,639
that Shimizu actually teaches away from not controlling the
temperature of the absorbent when ozone is discharged.
Because the reference teaches away from a recited process
step as set forth in appellants’ claims 26 and 27, we find that
the examiner has not set forth a prima facie of obviousness.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 26 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shimizu.
II. The Rejection involving claim 30
Independent claim 30 requires that the pressure around the
absorbent is above atmospheric pressure when the
ozonized gas is absorbed and the pressure around the absorbent
is below atmospheric pressure when the ozone is discharged.2
On page 5 of the answer, the examiner recognizes that
Shimizu fails to teach “a desorption pressure of less than one
atmosphere”.
The examiner relies upon Azuma for teaching the
relationship between adsorption/discharge of ozone with respect
to temperature and pressure. The examiner also relies upon
Azuma for teaching that the pressure around the absorbent is
below atmospheric pressure when the ozone is discharged.
(answer, page 5).
On page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that Azuma
teaches a pressure below atmospheric pressure during the
adsorption of ozonized gas. Appellants state that this is
opposite from Shimizu (Shimizu teaches a pressure above
atmospheric pressure during absorption of the ozonized gas).
2 In view of this claim requirement, one can conclude that the pressure
around the absorbent is higher when the ozonized gas is adsorbed than the
pressure around the adsorbent when the ozone is discharged (released).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007