Appeal 2007-4098
Application 09/962,887
As to the § 103 rejection based on Blumer and Klabunde, the
Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s finding at page 4 of the
Answer that:
Blumer discloses a unit (see col. 4, line 34) for use in a
waterwork (see col. 1, line 8; col. 4, lines 1-2; and Fig. 1),
which unit contains particles of iron oxide-iron hydroxide (see
col. 4, line 10). Accordingly, this primary reference discloses
the claimed invention with the exception of the use of pellets of
iron oxide-iron hydroxide. Klabunde discloses pellets of the
type recited, and further teaches that such pellets make the
adsorbent "easier to handle" (col. 11, lines 44-45).
Notwithstanding the Appellants’ arguments to the contrary at page 14 of the
Brief, we find that Klabunde as a whole would have suggested pelletizing
the particles of the type discussed in Blumer. Specifically, we find that
Klabunde teaches (col. 11, ll. 34 to 67) that:
The data from Table 5 provides further evidence that a
higher surface area/unit mass is obtained when the hydroxide is
activated in pellet form. This is beneficial, as storage of
palletized, rather than powder, hydroxide is more convenient
due to its lower volume….Overall the palletizing is very
beneficial as it preserves surface area/unit mass, decreases the
volume, and minimizes the static nature of the powder, making
it easier to handle the adsorbent.
…
Fig. 1 graphically illustrates the adsorption of acetaldehyde on
powder and palletized samples of AP-MgO. Over a period of
twenty hours, the efficiency of adsorption on the two samples
was very similar.
We find that Klabunde as a whole teaches that it is desirable to pelletize the
composition of the type discussed in Blumer. In addition, we find that
Klabunde teaches such pellets are useful for the liquid environment (col. 3,
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013