Appeal No. 2004-1488
Application No. 09/768,733
We first note that claim 1 does not require an
intermediate cooling station to conduct step (b) of claim
1.
Also, as pointed by the examiner on page 7 of the
answer, Kelley discloses, in column 6 at lines 25-36, that
an intervening treatment can be performed. We agree with
the examiner that this is a teaching that an intervening
treatment (which can be a condensation treatment), can be
preformed. We also agree with the examiner that such a
treatment would involve cooling. This is especially so
because Kelly teaches that the hydrocracker can be operated
at reduced temperatures, as discussed, supra. Appellants’
arguments do not show that in fact the effluent would not
be cooled under such circumstances.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the
anticipation rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2
We refer to pages 4-6 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position for this rejection.
On pages 9-11 of brief, appellants set forth
essentially the same arguments as set forth with regard to
the anticipation rejection, i.e., that Kelley fails to
suggest the step of “cooling the hydrotreated effluent”, as
recited in claim 1. Hence, for the very same reasons that
we affirmed the anticipation rejection, we also affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 2 and incorporate the
examiner’s explanation of obviousness as set forth on pages
4-6 of the answer as our own.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007