Appeal No. 2003-1529
Application No. 08/499,442
been the same or substantially similar to the claimed zones and
volume ratios. See In re Best, supra.
Appellant argues the specific values of Q recited in dependent
claims 4, 5, 25, 26, and 20-22 (Brief, pages 10-11). For reasons
adequately discussed above, we determine that the examiner has
reasonable belief that the volume ratios of Bauer would have been
the same or similar to those claimed.
Appellant also argues that there are significant differences
between the claim 24 process and the Bauer process, namely that
claim 24 is directed to natural gas while Bauer discloses a feed
gas of cracked ethane (Brief, page 10). This argument is not
persuasive since Bauer is directed generally to the drying of a gas
(col. 1, l. 6), and exemplifies a gas containing methane (Table 1;
col. 5, l. 39). The object of Bauer is “to dry a gas” (col. 4, l.
10). Although appellant argues that the “natural gas” recited in
claim 24 contains “primarily methane,” we note that appellant is
relying on the examples in the specification and not on any claimed
limitation (Brief, page 10).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation which has not been
adequately rebutted by appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007