Ex Parte PLATVOET et al - Page 2


          Appeal No. 2003-1066                                                        
          Application No. 09/841,277                                                  

          other pending claim, stands withdrawn from consideration by the             
          examiner as being drawn to a non-elected invention.                         


                                    The Invention                                     
               The appellants claim a pyrolysis heater for the pyrolysis              
          of hydrocarbons.  Claim 1, which is the broadest claim on                   
          appeal, is illustrative:                                                    
               1. A pyrolysis heater for the pyrolysis of hydrocarbons                
          comprising:                                                                 
               a. a radiant heating zone having a bottom hearth, a lower              
          portion adjacent to and extending upwardly from said hearth and             
          an upper portion extending upwardly from said lower portion;                
               b. at least one tubular heating coil for processing said               
          hydrocarbons located in said radiant heating zone and extending             
          into both said upper portion and said lower portion;                        
               c. a plurality of hearth burners located adjacent to said              
          hearth directed upwardly for firing vertically up through said              
          lower portion and into said upper portion; and                              
               d. a plurality of base burners located on said hearth for              
          firing in contact with said hearth thereby creating a heated                
          radiating hearth surface.                                                   


                                   The References                                     
               In addition to the appellants’ admitted prior art                      
          (specification, page 5 & Figure 1), the examiner relies on the              
          following references as evidence of unpatentability:                        
          Bauer et al.             4,342,642           Aug. 03, 1982                  
               (Bauer)                                                                

                                          2                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007