Appeal 2007-0121
Application 10/324,594
crushing separated smaller particles therewith as one obvious option for
sizing the perlite particles in the sorbent making process of Nelson.
According to Appellants, the Examiner has not proffered sufficient
evidence to establish the prima facie obviousness of employing separation
and crushing steps, as recited in claim 1, in Nelson’s sorbent making method
(Br. 7). In particular, Appellants maintain that Nelson does not furnish the
requisite suggestion and/or teaching that would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to use solids separation followed by crushing for acquiring
appropriately sized expanded perlite particles as part of the method of
making the sorbent. According to Appellants, such additional steps are
unnecessary to Nelson’s method and would be costly and time consuming;
thus, such steps are contrary to conventional wisdom.
We are not persuaded by those arguments for reasons expressed above
and in the Answer. As Appellants acknowledge in their Specification and as
discussed above, it is conventional to employ separation and crushing means
for classification (size separation) of solids and production of particularly
desired solids sizes. Thus, it was not necessary for the Examiner to cite to
any other reference, such as an engineering handbook or encyclopedia to
establish these facts concerning the well known availability of conventional
solids size reducing and classification (separation) equipment, as well as
techniques for using such.
Moreover, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that appropriately small sized perlite particles are required
when the sorbent is being made for a fluidized or entrained bed
desulfurization process as Nelson describes as an option. Hence, the use of
conventional separation and crushing means to obtain such smaller sizes
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013