Appeal No. 2002-1596
Application No. 09/284,701
processes with the requisite content of nitrogen oxide. Therefore
there is no basis, on this record, for the examiner to conclude
that nitrosyl sulfuric acid was inherently present in the sulfur
trioxide containing gases of Drechsel ‘586. The examiner finds
that the sulfur trioxide of the Drechsel patents comes from the
catalytic conversion of sulfur dioxide in air, which in turn comes
from the combustion of sulfur with air in a furnace (Answer, page
8). The examiner still relies upon the appellants’ “description of
the prior art” that it was known that nitrogen oxides react with
the sulfur oxides to form the claimed nitrosyl sulfuric acid
contaminant (id.). However, appellants’ description of the prior
art specifically teaches that the formation of this contaminant
depends on the content of nitrogen oxide after the sulfur dioxide
production. The examiner has failed to establish that the content
of nitrogen oxide after the sulfur dioxide production of Drechsel
‘586 is sufficient to form the nitrosyl sulfuric acid contaminant
disclosed in appellants’ specification.
As appellants correctly argue (Brief, pages 4-5; Reply Brief,
pages 2-3), even assuming arguendo that the examiner is correct
that nitrosyl sulfuric acid is an inherent contaminant of the
sulfur dioxide/trioxide process, the examiner has failed to show
that the prior art discloses/suggests the last step of claim 1 on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007