Ex Parte Zhou et al - Page 5

                Appeal 2006-3270                                                                             
                Application 10/369,089                                                                       
                10).  Alvarez also discloses that re-activation can be accomplished by                       
                heating the absorbent in an anhydrous inert gas atmosphere (e.g., N2 or Ar                   
                gas) at a temperature of about 250°-425° C. (480° -800°F.) for about 48-72                   
                hours in a nitrogen atmosphere (col. 10, ll. 16-20).                                         
                      Schulze describes a process for treating absorbent catalysts with                      
                gaseous acid such as halogen halides to increase and improve the activity of                 
                the catalyst (p. 1, left col., ll. 1-39).  Schulze discloses the gaseous acid can            
                be partially or completely saturated with water vapor at the temperature of                  
                treatment (p. 1, left col., ll. 42-45).  Schulze discloses the operating                     
                temperature of the gases treatment can range from 200°-500°C (p. 1, right                    
                col., ll. 9-40).                                                                             
                      Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a                 
                determination of:  (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the                       
                differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level              
                of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations.  Graham v.                   
                John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467                          
                (1966).  “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious]                   
                need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of               
                the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and                     
                creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”  KSR                
                Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396                      
                (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.                     
                Cir. 2006); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.                        
                C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir.                       
                2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be                      



                                                     5                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013