Appeal 2007-0616
Application 10/733,689
Examimer takes the position that Ruegg’s pressurized gas inherently resists
upstream infiltration of at least one contaminant. (See Answer 4).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Ruegg’s pressurized
gas in the conduit is necessarily or inherently “effective to substantially
resist upstream infiltration of a contaminant from an interior of the vessel”
as required by claim 13. On this record, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
As acknowledged by the Appellants (Br. 6), Ruegg teaches at
paragraph 0045 that:
Following the ignition of the gas mixture, the inner pipe
is preferably cleaned of the residues of the explosion, e.g., slag.
This takes place, for example, by means of compressed air,
which is sent through the inner pipe 22. For this purpose, one
of the gas supply lines 30 is equipped with an additional valve
41, which is connected with a compressed air reservoir 42, e.g.,
a compressed air compressor or a compressed air cylinder. This
additional valve 41, here depicted as a solenoid valve,
preferably is also capable of being driven and actuated
automatically.
We find that Ruegg also teaches in relevant part of paragraph 0050:
In preference, following the carrying out of the cleaning
process, the inner pipe 52 and possibly also the outer pipe 51 is
cleaned in a cleaning step, e.g., by means of compressed air it is
freed of slag and water.
From these disclosures, there is no doubt that Ruegg’s compressed gas
is sufficiently pressurized to remove slag and water in the conduit. Thus, it
is reasonable for the Examiner to conclude that at that same pressure, the
compressed gas necessarily or inherently resists the slag deposit removed
from the boiler from entering or infiltrating into at least upstream part of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013