Appeal No. 2005-1236
Application No. 10/065,796
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both
the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s
Sections 102(b) and 103(a) rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s Sections 102(b) and
103(a) rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the
Answer and below.
We note that Hertl teaches a method for removing low molecular
weight olefins from an exhaust gas mixture from an internal
combustion engine, wherein the exhaust gas mixture is contacted
with a hydrophilic material (a water trap) to remove water and then
with a hydrocarbon-removing material (a hydrocarbon trap) to remove
the low molecular weight olefins. See column 1, lines 50-60.
Water is removed first from the exhaust gas mixture since it
“strongly inhibits the adsorption capacity of some zeolites,
especially olefins.” See Hertl, column 1, lines 41-45. Indeed,
the examiner finds (the Answer, page 3 and the final Office action
dated January 15, 2004, pages 2-3), and the appellants do not
dispute (the Brief, pages 3-8 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-3), that
Hertl expressly teaches “all of the limitations of the claims
except” for the claimed limitation “the hydrocarbon-removing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007