Appeal 2007-0616
Application 10/733,689
and 19. Nevertheless, the Examiner has not proffered sufficient explanation
or evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
employ the pressurized purge gases at the locations recited in claims 16 and
19. Thus, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
ISSUE 3: Claim 18
Contrary to the Appellants’ argument, Ruegg teaches that the
oxidizing agent employed can be oxygen (oxygen cylinder) or air. (See
Ruegg, paragraphs 0013 and 0036). Moreover, we take official notice that
oxygen, oxygen enriched air, and air are all well known oxidizing agents.
Since compressed air is used to purge the residues of the explosion in the
conduit, we find that Ruegg teaches that the oxidizing agent employed can
be the same or different from the compressed air used for purging.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
ISSUE 4: Claims 20-23
Contrary to the Appellants’ arguments, Ruegg alone ,or together with
Pravnik, would have taught or suggested the continuous introduction of the
pressurized gas recited in claim 20 and the supplemental flow of a purge gas
recited in claim 23. Although Ruegg and Pravnik do not specify how the
compressed air is introduced, it must be introduced either intermittently or
continuously. Thus, from our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily envisaged either approach. This is especially true in this
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013