Appeal No. 2003-1529
Application No. 08/499,442
which must be gauged against the prior art, not the processes of
making the product). Additionally, appellant has not established
that the surface velocity of claim 8 produces some unexpected
result over the flow rate in the process of Bauer (see Table 1;
col. 5, ll. 33-34). See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,
16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs
most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section
103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims
6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bauer.
C. The Rejection under § 103(a) over Matyear
The examiner finds that Matyear discloses a process for drying
a gaseous mixture by passing the mixture into an adsorption zone
to remove water, where the adsorption zone comprises a first zone
containing active alumina and a second zone containing a molecular
sieve (Answer, page 4). The examiner recognizes that Matyear does
not specifically disclose that the adsorption zone comprises a mass
transfer zone and an equilibrium zone (id.). However, the examiner
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007