Appeal No. 2001-1693 Page 7
Application No. 09/168,099
features recited in these claims distinguish patentably over the applied prior art. On the
contrary, the appellants, at least implicitly, concede that these features were known in
the prior art. In essence, therefore, the only arguments presented by the appellants
with respect to these claims are those arguments regarding independent claim 2 which
were discussed above and found to be unconvincing.
Finally, it is appropriate to clarify the appellants' apparent impression (e.g., see
the paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16 of the Brief) that the Jung reference was
applied against dependent claim 3. It was not. Instead, the Kaibel reference was
applied against claim 3 (e.g., see pages 6 and 7 of the Answer), and we agree with the
examiner's conclusion that this reference would have suggested using the dividing wall
distillation column disclosed therein for effecting Reusser's desiderata of separating and
isolating his products by fractionation (e.g., see lines 8-10 in column 6 of Reusser).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain each of the § 103 rejections before us on
this appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007