Appeal No. 2002-1612
Application No. 09/048,984
with the gas stream containing hydrogen and thus prevents the
danger of overheating at the catalyst inlet location 8 by the
exothermal formation reaction" (page 6 of Brief, first
paragraph).
Appealed claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Zenz. Claim 3 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zenz in view of
Yoshikawa.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, it is our judgment that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness
within the meaning of §§ 102 and 103, respectively. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Zenz, in disclosing a granular bed filter
reactor, does provide the broad teaching that the reactor may
contain catalytic medium to perform reactive functions with a
fluid stream passing therethrough. Zenz fails to provide any
description of a reformation reactor, in particular. As for the
claimed guide plate, the examiner relies upon the reference
description of a louver 15 and screen 16. However, although we
do not subscribe to appellants' reasoning that the louver and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007