Appeal 2006-1516
Application 10/025,002
thorough analysis and application of the prior art, as well as her cogent
disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly, we will
adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Lapple, like Appellants, discloses a method for producing phosphoric acid
from a phosphate ore by mixing the phosphate ore with a carbon source and
silica, heating the mixture in a rotary kiln to a temperature in the range of
1200°-1500°C to produce phosphorus gas, and oxidizing the phosphorus gas
to phosphorus pentoxide, which is then removed to form phosphoric acid.
As recognized by the Examiner, Lapple is silent with respect to the carbon
source containing any sulfur. However, Appellants also do not dispute the
Examiner’s factual finding that Galeev teaches a method for producing
phosphorus from a mixture of phosphate ore, silica, and a source of carbon,
petroleum coke, that contains high levels of sulfur, and Galeev teaches that
sulfur enhances the amount of extraction of phosphorus from the ore.
Accordingly, based on the uncontested findings of the Examiner regarding
the disclosures of Lapple and Galeev, we fully concur with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a
carbon source containing relatively high levels of sulfur in the process of
Lapple to enhance the amount of phosphorus extracted from the ore.
The principal argument advanced by Appellants is that if petroleum
coke having a high sulfur content is used in the Lapple process, “the extreme
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013