Appeal No. 2003-2033
Application No. 09/154,130
proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner’s argument is that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Muldowney’s
distributor with that of Keller.4 Muldowney, however, as
discussed above, requires two arrays of downpipes, one array
having no holes corresponding to at least the lowest level of
holes in the other array, in order to achieve the desired
function of preserving good distribution when the distributor is
subject to variations in level from one point to another. The
examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have expected this function to be achieved by the
longitudinally extending slots in Keller’s hollow tubes. Hence,
the examiner has not adequately explained how the applied prior
art itself would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
replace Muldowney’s liquid distributor with that of Keller.
4 There is no issue before us, regarding the liquid distributor
claimed in the appellants’ claims 10 and 12, as to whether Keller’s
liquid distributor is adapted for use inside a substantially vertical
reactor containing a fixed bed catalyst and, if not, whether the
applied prior art would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, adapting Keller’s distributor in that manner.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007