Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
the fines are directed to section 62 below the venturi 60
(column 7, lines 7-10).
Although the secondary references applied by the examiner
individually provide separate disclosures of the three claimed
features lacking in Patel, we do not find that the processes
of Anwer, Reh, Nack and Patel '758 are sufficiently like the
process of Patel that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to modify Patel so that (1) the unreacted
carbonaceous material is returned to the oxidation zone below
the point of introduction of the feed carbonaceous material,
(2) inert material is circulated and (3) separated inert
material is returned to the oxidation zone. For instance,
whereas Nack recycles inert material, there is no disclosure
of returning unreacted carbonaceous material. Also, while Reh
recycles carbonaceous material, the reference does not teach
the claimed step of returning the unreacted carbonaceous
material to the oxidation zone below the point of introduction
of the feed carbonaceous material. Furthermore, as argued by
appellant, Reh discloses a two reactor system, not the claimed
single fluidized bed reactor. While Anwer discloses the
recycle of carbonaceous material through line 40, it is clear
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007