Appeal No. 2003-2012
Application No. 09/981,454
of record which explains that, in the environment of a fixed-bed
reactor process, separately introduced oxygen could cause hot
spots and potentially dangerous overheating conditions. While
such concerns might dissuade an artisan from introducing oxygen
separately in the environment of a fixed-bed reactor process,
these concerns would not have dissuaded the artisan from
introducing oxygen separately in a fluid-bed reactor process of
the type taught by each of the Sennewald references. This is
because Sennewald explicitly teaches that dissipation of reaction
heat is readily achieved in his fluidized-bed (e.g., see lines
32-36 on page 2 of Sennewald ‘623 and lines 47-51 on page 2 of
Sennewald ‘624) as correctly pointed out by the examiner in the
answer.2 In light of this teaching that heat dissipation is
readily achieved in Sennewald’s fluidized-bed, the examiner’s
obviousness conclusion regarding Sennewald’s fluidized-bed
process would not be forestalled by the overheating concerns
regarding a fixed-bed process.
It is the appellants’ further contention that any prima
facie case of obviousness established by the examiner is overcome
2Significantly, the appellants have not responded to the
examiner’s point regarding this aspect of the Sennewald
teachings.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007