Ex parte DRINKWINE et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 94-1098                                                          
          Application 07/712,581                                                      


          determined.  The stream of carrier gas and liquid is then passed            
          through a conduit 6 having a heated zone 21 maintained by a                 
          heating means 4 at an elevated temperature below that at which              
          significant combustion or decomposition occurs with respect to              
          organic compositions in the sample analyzed and above the                   
          temperature required to vaporize the liquid sample (column 3,               
          lines 32-43).  The heating conduit contains a carbonate-reactive            
          body formed from particulate solids coated with an acidic coating           
          (column 3, lines 44-55).  As explained at column 2, lines 38-43:            
                    At the temperature of the heated zone, the                        
               volatile components of the liquid are largely vaporized                
               without oxidation.  Any dissolved carbon dioxide is                    
               thus released.  In addition, vaporization deposits non-                
               volatile inorganic carbonates on the carbonate-reactive                
               body.  At the elevated temperature of the heated zone,                 
               such carbonates readily liberate carbon dioxide upon                   
               contacting the acid surface of the carbonate-reactive                  
               body.                                                                  

          The resulting product gases are then swept from the heated zone             
          21 by the carrier gas and thence into an analyzer 7 for                     
          quantitatively determining the carbon dioxide content of the gas            
          stream.                                                                     
               Considering first the standing rejection of claims 1, 6,               
          8-10, 25 and 29 as being unpatentable over Stenger, in rejecting            
          these claims the examiner proffers the following rationale:                 
                    The reference [Stenger] does not disclose a method                
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007