Appeal 2007-0121
Application 10/324,594
does not militate against the use of conventional separation and conventional
crushing steps as a way of obtaining expanded perlite of the desired size, as
seemingly argued (Br. 9 and Reply Br. 4). Indeed, Appellants appear to
argue against the use of conventional separation and crushing steps as if
impractical for Nelson while championing the same steps for their invention.
In effect, Appellants seemingly argue against the practicality or feasibility of
their own claimed invention, which requires such separation and crushing
steps. Suffice it to say that one of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be
possessed of sufficient skill to recognize that conventional size classification
(separation) and conventional crushing means were an available option for
use in the manner claimed as an available alternative for making expanded
perlite particles of a size suitable for making sorbents useful in a sorbent bed
of Nelson. Appellants have not established that the process of representative
claim 1 is attended by anything but expected results. It follows that we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-11 over Nelson, on
this record.
§ 103(a) Rejection over Nelson and Khare
Claims 11-17 and 38
Appellants present no specific arguments against the rejection of
claims 11-17 and 38 over Nelson and Khare. Rather, Appellants base their
arguments for claims 11-17 on the arguments made against the rejection of
claim 1 over Nelson alone. Also, no specific arguments are made against the
Examiner’s rejection of product-by-process claim 38. We select claim 11 as
representative claim for this claim grouping. Claim 11 is dependent on
claim 1 and Appellants do not argue against the Examiner’s additional
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013