Appeal 2007-2553
Application 10/367,347
gaseous streams? (2) does Muradov describe each and every limitation
found in the claims on appeal?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore we
AFFIRM the sole rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.1
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Muradov discloses the carbon dioxide-free production of hydrogen
and carbon by thermocatalytic decomposition of hydrocarbons
over carbon-based catalysts by combining a catalytic reactor with
a gas separation unit to produce high purity hydrogen that can be
introduced to a fuel cell (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 5-10; and col. 3, ll.
54-57, 65-67);
(2) Muradov discloses a process of thermocatalytic decomposition of
a hydrocarbon stream over a moving bed of carbon particulates ,
recovering a stream of hydrogen-containing gas (HCG), directing
this stream to a gas-separation unit (GSU) where pure hydrogen is
separated from said stream and hydrogen-depleted gas (HDG),
recovering pure hydrogen for use in combination with a fuel cell
(col. 4, ll. 1-17);
1 Since Appellants do not contest the patentability of any specific claim, we
limit our consideration in this appeal to independent claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013