Appeal No. 1999-1254
Application No. 08/820,490
The examiner acknowledges that Weyand does not teach the
use of a velocity drop box required by certain of the
dependent claims. In order to supply this deficiency of the
Weyand reference, the examiner relies upon Sikander.
The appellants argue that Weyand differs from the
appealed claims in that Weyand uses only one cooling step at a
temperature below the boiling point of mercury, while the
here-claimed process comprises at least two cooling steps
where the first cooling step is at a temperature above the
boiling point of mercury. The appellants further argue that,
although the Sikander reference does contain two cooling
steps, both cooling steps are intended to collect mercury
condensate from the vapor stream and therefore necessarily
operate at a temperature below the boiling point of mercury.
Finally, the appellants argue that, even if the two references
were combined, the resulting process would not read on the
appealed claims that are directed to at least two cooling
steps, where the first cooling step is at a temperature above
the boiling point of mercury.
We agree with the appellants' basic position that, even
if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007