Appeal No. 1999-1254
Application No. 08/820,490
applied references, the resulting combination would not
correspond to the process defined by the appealed claims.
Specifically, the applied references whether taken
individually or in combination would not have suggested the
here-claimed step of directing the first gaseous phase to a
first cooling unit which reduces the temperature of said
gaseous phase by at least 100°F to a temperature which is
above the boiling point of mercury. See Appellants' claim 1.
The examiner fails to rebut or even acknowledge the
appellants' above-discussed argument. Instead, the examiner
wrongly focuses on the number of process steps in the
references. For example, the examiner states that Weyand
suggests a two and three stage mercury removal/recovery
process. See examiner's answer, page 4. While this may be
true, it is clear that Weyand contains no teaching or
suggestion of a cooling step at a temperature above the
boiling point of mercury in accordance with the appealed
claims. Similarly, the examiner is correct that Sikander
discloses a two stage (step) cooling process, but the examiner
fails to appreciate that the function of each cooling step of
the Sikander process is to collect mercury condensate.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007