Appeal No. 1998-3168
Application No. 08/420,730
steam from non-sulfur containing water through the use of a
heat exchanger. We cannot agree more with the examiner's
rationale
that:
[I]f one is concerned with the recovery of
heat energy from the digester and producing
pure and clean steam for use in the paper
mill dryer, it would have been obvious to
modify the heat energy recovery and steam
generation of Elmore by using indirect heat
exchanger and fresh clean water as a source
of evaporable liquid inlet to produce clean
steam as taught by Dean [sentence bridging
pages 8 and 9 of Answer].
Since both Elmore and Dean are directed to paper milling
processes and are concerned with the efficient recovery of
heat energy, we do not agree with appellant that Dean is non-
analogous art with respect to the disclosure of Elmore and the
claimed invention.
Appellant asks at page 5 of the principal brief "what
would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to act upon
the stream 60 which does contain sulfur compounds in Elmore et
al[.] so that it did not contain sulfur compounds?" We find
the motivation clearly spelled out in Dean, i.e., the
motivation to produce pure steam for the unit operations which
require it, namely, evaporators, paper mill dryers, and during
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007