Appeal No. 2003-1968 Page 3
Application No. 09/327,963
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472,
223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection.
Jenkins discloses a gas-phase fluidized bed polymerization
reactor that includes a calming zone, circulating gas line,
compressor, cooling apparatus, a flow divider and a gas
distribution plate including ports (29, fig. 2) and angle caps
(36a and 36b, fig. 2).
The examiner (answer, page 3) acknowledges that Jenkins does
not disclose the use of a distributor plate having a plurality of
conically widened gas flow orifices in the manner as here
claimed. To make up for that missing teaching of the claimed
subject matter, the examiner turns to Chang.
Chang is directed to a Fischer-Tropsch slurry hydrocarbon
synthesis process carried out in a reactor wherein synthesis gas
is bubbled up through a slurry of catalyst particles in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007