Appeal No. 2002-1097
Application 09/382,613
the inorganic adsorbents (e.g., zeolite, zirconium compound,
acid clay, dolomite, etc.) disclosed by Tanaka as useful, there
is no reason to believe that this alumina would interfere with
the primary reference [Tanaka] purification process (id.). We
disagree.
“When relying on numerous references or a modification
of prior art, it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify some
suggestion to combine references or make the modification.
[Citation omitted].” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d
1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The examiner has failed to identify
any convincing suggestion or factual evidence to substitute the
alumina of McDaniel for the inorganic ion exchangers disclosed by
Tanaka. The examiner has merely established that the impurity or
contaminant of Tanaka and McDaniel is the same (basic substances
such as sodium or potassium hydroxides) and concluded that an
alumina adsorbent would have the same affinity in purifying
the composition of Tanaka “for substantially the same reason”
as in McDaniel (Answer, page 5). However, there is no evi-
dence or technical reasoning, on this record, to support the
examiner’s contention that alumina would act the same with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007