Appeal 2007-0121
Application 10/324,594
motion (fluidized) bed or for use in an entrained bed (col. 3, l. 54 – col. 4, l.
11).
Given these teachings of Nelson and the well known and conventional
use of separation and/or crushing equipment in obtaining appropriately sized
solids, the Examiner has reasonably determined that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a conventional solids
separation step to remove inappropriately larger size particles and a
conventional crushing step to reduce the size of expanded perlite particles in
Nelson’s process for forming a sorbent (Answer 3, 4, and 6-9). This is
especially so because Nelson discloses the option of forming sorbents for
use in different types of beds (fixed, fluidized, or entrained), as discussed
above. In this regard and as evidenced by Nelson’s concern with too large a
size particle for the fixed bed option, the size of the particles used in forming
the sorbent are an intuitively recognizable result effective variable for
forming a sorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize
that using relatively small particle sizes is particularly important when
forming a product sorbent for fluidization or entrainment in a gas, as taught
by Nelson. Thus, particle size is a result effective variable that must be
taken into account when forming a product sorbent for fluidization or
entrainment in a gas. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that Nelson implicitly suggests particle size requirements
for the sorbent particles as being result effective for each type of bed for
which the sorbent is made. In light of the above, we agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led, prima
facie, to use conventional separation and crushing equipment, including
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013