Appeal 2007-2553
Application 10/367,347
use of the cyclone for separating one hydrogen-enriched material stream
from a gaseous residual stream (id.).
Appellants contend that separation device 2 disclosed by Muradov is
constructed as a cyclone for separating particulate matter, as it is commonly
known that particles are separated from a gaseous stream by mass
separation, but it is not possible to separate a hydrogen-enriched material
stream from a gaseous residual stream in a cyclone (Br. 4-5). Appellants
thus contend that Muradov does not describe each and every limitation of
the claims and fails to anticipate the claimed subject matter (Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that the cyclone 2 disclosed by Muradov is
clearly a mass separation device, and according to claim 14 and Figure 2 of
the reference, the hydrogen-containing gas from the reactor must be
separated in the cyclone into pure hydrogen, for introduction into the anode
of the fuel cell, and hydrogen depleted gas (HDG) (Answer 4-5). The
Examiner further contends that cyclone separators are well known for
separating gaseous streams of different density, and Muradov does not
disclose or suggest that carbon particles are separated in the cyclone
(Answer 5).
The Examiner also contends that the claims are directed to apparatus,
therefore the type of gases separated are not given patentable weight, and the
cyclone must merely be capable of separating a hydrogen containing fluid
stream into a hydrogen enriched material stream and a gaseous residual
stream (Answer 6).
Accordingly, the issues presented from the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) is the cyclone disclosed by Muradov capable of separating
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013