Appeal 2006-3270
Application 10/369,089
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In support of this
position the Examiner has referred to the disclosures of Schulze.1
Appellants contend that there is no combination of Alvarez and
Schulze that renders obvious the claimed invention (Br. 11). Appellants
contend that Alvarez does not disclose removing moisture from a corrosive
gas at a temperature that exceeds 100°C (Br. 11-12). Appellants contend
that Schulze describes the treatment of an absorbent-type catalyst with
halogen containing gases for increasing the lifetime and activity of the
catalysts (Br. 13). Appellants contend that Schulze is devoid of any teaching
that would suggest using the operating temperature of Schulze during the
dehydration of the acid gas stream of Alvarez (Br. 14). Appellants further
contend that the Examiner has not employed the proper standard of
obviousness for creating the stated rejection (Br. 14-15).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) does Alvarez disclose, teach, or suggest a method of treating an
adsorbent including first heating the absorbent and an anhydrous nitrogen
atmosphere of 250°-425°C and subsequently passing a gas stream
comprising a halide over the absorbent resin?; (2) has the Examiner
presented an explicit analysis of the reasons for combining the elements of
Alvarez and Schulze?; and (3) do the applied prior art references disclose,
teach, or suggest treating an absorbent with a first heating step under dry
nitrogen and a second heating step wherein the second temperature is less
than the first temperature and greater than 100° C?
1 The Examiner asserts that Schulze teaches the use of and inert gas step at
temperatures of 200°C and 350°C (Answer 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013