Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
The references set forth below are relied upon as evidence
of obviousness:
Kisters et al. (Kisters) 4,229,411 Oct. 21, 1980
Tom 6,030,591 Feb. 20, 2000
Rossin et al. (Rossin) 6,069,291 May 30, 2000
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rossin in view of Kisters and
Tom.
We refer to the brief and reply brief as well as to the
answer for a complete exposition of the opposing view points
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
With respect to the appealed independent claim
1 distinctions over the primary reference to Rossin, the examiner
states that:
Rossin . . . does not disclose (1) the step of controlling
the scrubbing condition by monitoring the amount of harmful
substances in the effluent gas before and after the
scrubbing step and (2) the decomposing step is carried
in a combustion chamber having a combustible gas.
[Answer, page 5.]
Concerning claim distinction (1), the examiner concludes
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007