Appeal No. 2003-1529
Application No. 08/499,442
Claims 3-5, 7, 17 and 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bauer (Answer, page 2). Claims 6 and 8
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bauer
(Answer, page 3). Claims 3-8, 17 and 20-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matyear (Answer, page 4).
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b) over Bauer
The examiner finds that Bauer discloses a process for the
drying of a gas mixture by passing the gas mixture into an
adsorption zone which contains an upstream alumina adsorbent
and a downstream molecular sieve adsorbent (Answer, page 3). The
examiner recognizes that Bauer does not specifically disclose that
the ratio of the volume of alumina to the volume of the molecular
sieve and the alumina (Q) is between 0.05 and 0.8 at an instant
when water breaks through an exit of the adsorber (id.). The
examiner also recognizes that Bauer does not specifically disclose
that the adsorption zone comprises a mass transfer zone and an
equilibrium zone (id.). However, the examiner states that the
process of Bauer is the same or similar to the claimed process in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007