Ex Parte Morton et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-0121                                                                                 
                Application 10/324,594                                                                           
                would have been suggested by this disclosure and would have been well                            
                within the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan.  This skill level is also               
                evidenced by Appellants’ acknowledgements that any conventional                                  
                separation means and that any conventional crushing means can be used to                         
                obtain the required selectively crushed perlite particles.                                       
                       As for Appellants’ reference to Exhibit A, said to be attached to an                      
                amendment dated October 27, 2005, we note that Appellants’ Brief does not                        
                include a copy of such an Exhibit and provide a statement setting forth                          
                where in the record that evidence was entered in the record by the Examiner                      
                as part of an Evidence Appendix, as is required.  See 37 C.F.R. §                                
                41.37(c)(ix) (2006).  Indeed, Appellants state “None” in describing the                          
                evidence being relied upon in the Evidence Appendix.  Thus, given                                
                Appellants Evidence Appendix statement, this evidence is not properly                            
                before us for our consideration.4                                                                
                       In any event, we note that Appellants’ Specification discloses that                       
                expanded perlite is commercially available in small sizes, including sizes                       
                that Appellants’ find useful in the claimed invention.  See Examples 1 and 2                     
                of the Specification, particularly the disclosure of the commercially                            
                available HarborliteTM 205 perlite used in Example 1.  However, that                             
                disclosure of the commercial availability of expanded perlite in a given size                    
                                                                                                                
                4 In any event, we note that any showing that expanded perlite is                                
                commercially available in sizes corresponding to the largest dimension of                        
                the perlite for a fixed bed as used in the Examples of Nelson does not                           
                militate against the use of conventional separation and crushing steps in                        
                obtaining such sized perlite.  Moreover, as we discuss in this Decision,                         
                Nelson also teaches forming sorbents for use in fluidized and entrained beds,                    
                which would obviously encompass the use of much smaller sized expanded                           
                perlite particles in forming the sorbent.                                                        
                                                       8                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013