Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
carbon monoxide) (Woods, col. 12, ll. 63-67; col. 13, ll. 4-8). Woods further
discloses that porous membranes (i.e., porous septums) are used in the
“device 118,” which is positioned after the reformer 116 (Woods, Figure 1A,
col. 5, ll. 14-34).
Accordingly, from Woods’ disclosure, the combination of Woods’
porous membrane (i.e., porous septum) with Hershkowitz’s autothermal
reformer reactor would have included placing the porous membrane after the
autothermal reformer reactor to separate the desirable hydrogen gas
produced in the autothermal reformer reactor from the undesirable gases.
However, Appellant’s claim 5 recites “the second inlet is divided into
first and second chambers by a porous septum.” Plainly, the language of
claim 5 indicates the porous septum must be positioned in the second inlet
(i.e., before) the autothermal reformer reactor, not after the autothermal
reformer reactor as disclosed by Woods. Therefore, the combination of
Woods’ membrane with Hershkowitz’s autothermal reformer reactor would
not have taught or suggested Appellant’s claim 5.
Furthermore, we agree with Appellant that placing Woods’ porous
membrane (i.e., porous septum) in the passages 22 (i.e., second inlets) of
Hershkowitz would remove the oxygen from the oxidant stream passing
through the passages 22 (i.e., second inlets) so as to render Hershkowitz
unsatisfactory of the its intended purpose (i.e., oxidizing hydrocarbons).
Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902, 221 USPQ at 1127. Because the proposed
combination would render Hershkowitz unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose of oxidizing hydrocarbons, there would have been no motivation for
the Examiner’s proposed combination of Woods’ porous membrane (i.e.,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013