Appeal 2006-3058
Application 10/386,070
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Appellant describes the claimed invention as relating to:
a unique asphalt plant construction having first and second
stage mixing zones wherein the first stage mixing zone is
purposefully exposed to secondary combustion air for
exhausting blue smoke to the combustion zone while the second
stage mixing zone is isolated from the secondary combustion
air flow to minimize entrainment of fines in the second stage
mixing zone.
Br. 9. Appellant argues that Green cannot anticipate the claims because
Green discloses a single mixing zone which is isolated from any air flow.
(Br. 9.)
The Examiner contends that Green’s mixing zone 49 is properly
divided into two stages: a first stage in which liquid asphalt is added and a
second stage in which mineral fines from feeder 171 are added. (Answer 7.)
The Examiner maintains that:
While its [sic, it] is true that that [sic] the second stage mixing zone of
Green (‘882) is substantially isolated from the flow of secondary
combustion air, secondary combustion air is directed to the first stage
mixing zone as best seen in Fig. 3. Specifically, the secondary air
tube 111 of Green (‘882) terminates substantially to the left of
(“downstream of” with respect to the direction of aggregate flow) the
primary air tube 91 which terminates at 157, as best seen in Fig. 3. In
other words, secondary air tube 111 of Green (‘822) terminates within
the second stage mixing zone.
Answer 8.
We are in agreement with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings with
respect to the flow of combustion air lack evidentiary support and contradict
Green’s detailed description of the invention (see Reply 2-4). For example,
Green clearly teaches that the mixing zone 49 and materials being processed
in the mixing zone 49 are isolated from air movement (see FF 8). Likewise,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013