Appeal 2007-2208
Application 10/650,510
In this regard, Appellants counter with the contention that the
disclosure of Maroldo is too ambiguous with regard to the formation or use
of a specific size range of particles, as claimed, to be suggestive of the
claimed subject matter. We disagree. Given the full disclosure of Maroldo,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to form the
polysulfonated polymer particles of a size to be useful for the disclosed
purposes of forming same. As such, the ordinarily skilled artisan would
have determined and made the treated polymer beads in particle sizes that
are suitable for using the particles as an adsorbent or catalyst support in
typical contacting beds arranged for such purposes. For example, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have generally made the particles of smaller
size when the adsorbent or catalyst use was to be performed in a typical
fluidized or entrained bed, as opposed to a fixed bed. This is so because one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had some skill in carrying out routine
experimentation and recognized the need for making particle sizes useful in
such typical contacting beds. In so doing, we have no doubt that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to make the carbonized
(pyrolyzed) polysulfonated vinylaromatic polymer particles of Maroldo in a
size suitable for fluidization as one option and in so doing arrive at particle
sizes corresponding to the representative claim 1 particle sizes.2
We recognize that Maroldo also presented Example 1 wherein a
somewhat larger particle sized polymer bead was used for polysulfonation
(Answer 5). However, we need not concern ourselves with this statement of
the Examiner in light of our findings above.
2 We note, for example, that Maroldo discloses that the polymer particles
can be fluidized during the pyrolysis treatment thereof (col. 5, ll. 16-18).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013