Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 24 and 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Upon careful consideration of
the opposing arguments presented on appeal, we find ourselves
in agreement with appellant that the applied prior art fails
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection.
Patel, the primary reference, discloses a gasification
process that does not include three of the presently claimed
features. In particular, Patel fails to disclose (1)
returning separated carbonaceous material to the oxidation
zone below the point of introduction of the feed carbonaceous
material, (2) the presence of inert material in the fluidized
bed reactor, and (3) recycling the separated inert material to
the oxidation zone of the reactor. Although Patel discloses a
recycle of carbonaceous fines in line 84, the examiner is
mistaken in stating that the recycled fines are introduced
into the oxidation zone of the reactor. Patel discloses that
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007