Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
CLAIM 5
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under § 103(a) over Hershkowitz in
view of Woods. The Examiner finds that Hershkowitz does not teach a
porous septum (Answer 6). However, the Examiner finds that Woods
discloses using diffusion membranes that are porous to hydrogen (Answer
6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the
specific porous membrane (i.e., porous septum) of Woods in the partial
oxidation apparatus of Hershkowitz because Woods discloses “such specific
porous septum[s] are usable in hydrogen generation and purification systems
for separating and purifying mixed gases” (Answer 6).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not indicated how the porous
septum would be incorporated into Hershkowitz’s diffusion bonded plate
injector (i.e., injector means 20) (Br. 10). Appellant further argues that the
proposed modification would render Hershkowitz’s autothermal reformer
reactor unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Woods’ porous
membrane selectively removes all gases except hydrogen such that it would
block the oxygen and hydrocarbons necessary to operate Hershkowitz’s
autothermal reformer reactor (Br. 11).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 5.
If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being
modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Woods discloses using a porous membrane (i.e., porous septum) to
separate hydrogen gas from other gases (e.g., nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013