Appeal No. 2002-1596
Application No. 09/284,701
appeal. Namely, the examiner has not shown that Drechsel ‘586 (or
‘900) disclosed or would have suggested that the condensed nitrosyl
sulfuric acid “is discharged” from the gas stream (see claim 1 on
appeal, last two lines). Construing the term “is discharged” as
broadly as reasonably possible, in light of the specification as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, we determine that
the term “discharge” means “to be removed” from the gas stream, as
by discharge line 7 or line 14 (see Figure 1, Figure 2 and the
specification, page 4, ll. 13-17 and ll. 32-34). See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The
examiner finds that “Drechsel does make provision for removing
the nitrosyl sulfuric acid out of the gas” because the reference
teaches the same cooling temperatures as appellants require in the
claims (Answer, page 10). However, the examiner fails to point out
where it was taught or suggested in the applied prior art to
“discharge” or “remove” the condensed contaminant nitrosyl sulfuric
acid. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the reference evidence. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007