Appeal 2007-0121
Application 10/324,594
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections. Our reasoning follows.
§ 103(a) Rejection over Nelson
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness because Nelson does not teach or suggest all of the
limitations of claim 1, particularly the steps of separating and crushing, as
recited in steps (a) and (b) of claim 1.1
The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have recognized, prima facie, that conventional
particle sizing steps, such as classification (separation) and crushing, would
obviously be employed as one way of obtaining perlite of a size suitable for
forming the desulfurization sorbent composition of Nelson and with a
reasonable expectation of success in so doing.
Thus, the principal issue raised in this appeal with respect to the
Examiner’s first stated rejection is: Would one of ordinary skill in the art
have been led, prima facie, to employ solids separation and crushing, as
called for in claim 1, in forming the perlite-containing sorbent composition
of Nelson, with a reasonable expectation of success in so doing?
We answer that question in the affirmative; hence, we affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Nelson.
At the outset, we note that Appellants disclose that the claimed
crushing and separating steps are both performed using any “means known
in the art” (Specification 9 and 10). Thus, Appellants acknowledge that
1 Appellants argue claims 1-17 together as a group. Thus, we select claim 1
as a representative claim for the first stated rejection of claims 1-11. Claims
11-17 will be addressed in our consideration of the Examiner’s second stated
rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013