Appeal No. 2002-1596
Application No. 09/284,701
exchanger 8 (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5, citing Figure 1
of Drechsel ‘586).2 The examiner recognizes that Drechsel ‘586
fails to disclose that nitrosyl sulfuric acid is present in a gas
stream in the sulfuric acid manufacturing process (Answer, pages 5
and 7).
To remedy this deficiency in Drechsel ‘586, the examiner cites
appellants’ description of the prior art on pages 1-2 of the
specification which “discloses that nitrosyl sulfuric acid is a
common contaminant in sulfuric acid manufacturing processes.”
Answer, page 5. From these findings, the examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellants’ invention that nitrosyl sulfuric acid was a
“conventional and common contaminant in sulfuric acid manufacture
processes.” Id. The examiner also concludes that “it is fully
expected that the same sulfur trioxide containing gases will
inherently contain the same nitrosyl sulfuric acid set forth in the
Applicants’ claims” and thus “will inherently also be condensed out
2The examiner applies Drechsel ‘900 to show a similar
process to that of Drechsel ‘586, where the cooling temperature
is recited as 140°C. (Answer, page 6, citing col. 5, ll. 20-27,
of Drechsel ‘900). Therefore Drechsel ‘900 does not remedy the
deficiencies in the examiner’s rejection discussed infra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007