Appeal No. 2004-2019
Application No. 10/301,441 Page 2
containing a minor quantity of said impurities which
comprises contacting the MTBE feed in the liquid phase
with a solid contact material consisting essentially of
a solid large pore zeolite and recovering a MTBE
product stream reduced in content of said impurities
from the contact.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Knifton et al. (Knifton) 5,457,243 Oct. 10, 1995
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Knifton. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knifton.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants insofar as the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007