Appeal 2007-2486
Application 10/429,369
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sorgenti in view of the Gunnerman.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Sorgenti in view of Gunnerman and Meyer.
Appellant separately argues claims 1, 8, 11, and 13. Therefore, in
accordance with their respective dependencies, claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10
stand or fall with claims 1 and 8, and claims 12, 14, and 15 stand or fall with
claims 11 and 13.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) SORGENTI IN VIEW GUNNERMAN
CLAIM 1
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine Gunnerman’s
ultrasonic sulfur removal process with Sorgenti’s hydrodesulfurization
process because it would be more expensive and inefficient to combine two
different sulfur removing processes (Br. 11). Appellant argues that Sorgenti
and Gunnerman are incompatible because Gunnerman removes the sulfur
via ultrasound and an aqueous phase, whereas Sorgenti uses a conventional
hydrodesulfurization process (Br. 11).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are unpersuaded
by them for the reasons below.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013