Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 21. Accordingly, Appellants urge that the rejections of the independent claims, i.e.,
2 claims 1, 27, 50, and 61, should be reversed, because the allegedly inoperable device
3 resulting from the combination of Okamoto and St-Pierre is evidence that these
4 references teach away from the claimed subject matter. (Brief at 6 and at 11.)
5 22. For the same reason, Appellants argue that the rejection of claims dependent from
6 claim 1, namely claims 2, 3, 6–10, 19, 20, and 44–49, and also the claims dependent from
7 claim 27, namely claims 28, 29, 31, and 33–36, that rely on the combined teachings of
8 Okamoto and St-Pierre, should be reversed. (Brief at 10.)
9 23. Appellants argue further that the Examiner did not address dependent claims 2,
10 7-10, 20, 28, 29, 31, 33–35, 44, and 47 in the Final Rejection, and that consequently, the
11 Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of these claims. (Brief
12 at 10–11.)
13 24. The Examiner responds that the final rejection did address all limitations, citing
14 Okamoto's teaching that hydrogen gas can be obtained from a feedstream comprising a
15 carbon containing feedstock (methanol) and water [Okamoto at col. 2, ll. 48–57], to meet
16 the further limitation of claim 2; citing the steam reformer to meet the further limitation
17 recited in claim 7 [Okamoto at col. 2, l. 50]; the provision of a hydrogen selective
18 permeable membrane PSA to remove impurities from the hydrogen gas produced by the
19 fuel processor [Okamoto at col. 3, ll. 24–32; col. 4, ll. 47-53, respectively] to meet the
20 further limitation of claim 8; and enrichment of the oxygen stream by removing nitrogen
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013