Appeal No. 95-2741
Application 08/008,120
exchanger would have been obvious.24
While Austin discloses the use of heat exchangers, the patent does not disclose the high temperature,
high heat conductivity lined wall heat exchanger of the type required by applicant’s claims. At best Austin
merely teaches the use of conventional heat exchangers. The examiner has not explained how the heat
exchanges described by Austin would suggest the high temperature, high heat conductivity heat exchangers
required by applicant’s claims. We have not been directed to any evidence supporting a conclusion that the
use of a lined wall heat exchanger, as that phrase is used and defined by applicant, would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are REVERSED.
B. The § 112 rejection
As we understand the examiner’s position, the indefiniteness rejection is premised on two grounds.
First, the inconsistency between applicant’s argument as to the scope of Claim 1 as excluding a preliminary
quench and dependent Claim 2's explicit requirement for a preliminary quench renders the scope of Claim
2 unclear. Secondly, Claim 2 assertedly encompasses a quench liquid flow rate of zero, so it is not clear
what Claim 2 adds to Claim 1.25
We reverse.
As to the first ground, our construction of Claim 1, that it encompasses a preliminary quench,
disposes of any perceived inconsistency.
As to the second ground, the examiner is simply incorrect as to the construction of the claim. Claim
2 expressly requires “injecting a quench fluid into the effluent prior to passing into the lined wall heat
exchanger . . . .” This language precludes a construction that the claim encompasses a zero quench liquid
24 Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4.
25 Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-5.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007