Appeal No. 94-3184
Application 07/924,828
(col. 2, lines 3-8, 29-33 and 50-54). Therefore, we conclude
that Chu fails to anticipate claim 5.
B. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Battista in view of Verhille. We also reverse
this rejection.
Battista discloses a fuel slurry comprising water, liquid
fuel oil and solid fuel particles. The examiner recognizes that
the Battista reference "lacks specific teachings to inorganic
solids and all of the composition from the same source" (Answer,
p.4). Furthermore, the examiner states that she (Answer, p.7):
[A]grees with appellant's arguments that
Battista does not teach that the total heat
capacity of the composition is derived from
the same refinery waste stream . . . .
The examiner relies on Verhille for the deficiencies in
Battista and concludes that the claimed invention would have been
prima facie obvious (Answer, pp.4-5):
. . . Verhille teaches a similar fuel
composition comprising a mixture of aqueous
residual liquids with oily combustible
materials comprising organic solids and
inorganic solids (col. 4, lines 35-54 and
claims 1, 12-16 and 19-21). Having the prior
art before him it would have been obvious to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007