Appeal 2007-0616
Application 10/733,689
conduit. To find otherwise is to ignore the purpose of Ruegg’s compressed
gas, i.e., making Ruegg’s conduit freed of slag and water. This is especially
true since Plavnik teaches that beginning every new cleaning cycle, the
conduit must be cleaned with a purge gas for safety reasons (col. 10, ll. 29-
34).
The Appellants argue that Ruegg’s compressed gas does not resist the
upstream infiltration of contaminants since its “thin-walled container 25”
appears to perform such a function (Br. 6). We do not agree. As can be
seen from Figure 1 and paragraph 0013, Ruegg’s compressed gas need not
be used together with a thin-walled container 25. Indeed, Plavnik, like
paragraph 13 of Ruegg, teaches a method for mixing a fuel and an oxidizing
gas in a lance (not a thin-walled container) in a detonation cleaning process.
In any event, claim 13, by virtue of using the transitional phrase
“comprising,” does not preclude the use of the thin-walled container,
together with the compressed gas, to resist the upstream infiltration of
contaminants.
Thus, for the factual findings set forth above and in the Answer, we
concur with the Examiner that either Ruegg alone or Ruegg in view of
Pravnik would have rendered the subject matter recited in claims 13 through
15, and 17 anticipated or obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
and 103.
ISSUE 2: Claims 16 and 19
As pointed out by the Appellants (Br. 7-8), Ruegg and Pravnik do not
mention the claimed specific purge gas feeding locations recited in claims 16
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013