Appeal No. 2003-1529
Application No. 08/499,442
would not materially be affected by taking into account the volumes
of the support materials such as gravel and wire mesh.
Appellant argues that the examiner’s estimate of the volume
ratio of Bauer is based on the entire volume of the vessel 3 rather
than solely on the volume of the equilibrium zone within an
adsorber as recited in the claims on appeal (Brief, page 8; Reply
Brief, page 3). This argument is not persuasive for several
reasons. We note that the equilibrium zone may be the only zone
in the adsorber (see claim 17 on appeal), apparently corresponding
to a process where the adsorbent was not saturated (specification,
page 5, ll. 15-22). Thus it appears that the volume ratio of the
equilibrium zone would correspond to the initial charging volume
ratio. Additionally, the specification teaches that “the volume of
alumina and of molecular sieve correspond to the volumes determined
at the time of charging of the adsorber.” Specification, page 6,
ll. 7-10. Finally, as discussed above, the feedstock, process
conditions, amounts of alumina and molecular sieve, and desired
results taught by Bauer are the same or substantially similar to
the claimed process, and thus the examiner has reason to believe
that the equilibrium zone, the mass transfer zone, and the volume
ratios of alumina and molecular sieve found in Bauer would have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007