Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
interpreted consistent with the above precedents, we determine
that it encompasses the fuel inlet passage (208) of the
autothermal reforming assembly described in Clawson since the
fuel inlet passage (208) is “in heat exchange relationship” with
a processed fuel gas stream (the processed fuel gas stream
indirectly heats a gas stream in a passage (218), which in turn
indirectly heats a fuel stream in the fuel inlet passage (208)).
See Figure 3.
Even were we interpret the claimed fuel inlet passage in the
manner suggested by the appellant, we determine that the heavy
fuel inlet (246) and/or the helical tub (232) described in
Clawson meet the claimed fuel inlet passage limitation since they
convey a heavy fuel and are in “heat exchange relationship” with
a processed fuel gas stream. See Clawson, page 21, line 28 to
page 22, line 8, together with Figure 3.
The only other argument raised by the appellant is directed
to obviousness of using the monolithic open cell foam catalytic
support taught in Narumiya in the autothermal reforming assembly
described in Clawson. However, we are not persuaded by this
argument since, for the reasons set forth supra, the use of the
claimed monolithic open cell foam catalyst in the autothermal
reforming assembly described in Clawson would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007