Ex parte ROSS, JR., et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 96-0037                                                          
          Application 08/237,224                                                      

                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 15 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as            
          being unpatentable over Barnes.                                             
               The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.                   
               The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in             
          the Brief and the Reply Brief.                                              

               Like the claimed invention, Barnes is directed to an                   
          apparatus suitable for separating fluidized cracking catalyst               
          solids from hydrocarbon vapors.  The sole point of contention               
          between the appellants and the examiner relates to the                      
          orientation of the opening through which the vapor product is               
          withdrawn.  The appellants' claims require that the hydrocarbon             
          vapor product stream be withdrawn through a horizontally upwardly           
          disposed opening (independent claims 10 and 27), or through an              
          opening whose boundaries are at specified angles which result in            
          such an orientation (independent claims 23 and 25).  Insofar as             
          the Barnes reference is concerned, the only explicit teaching is            
          that the opening be "preferably located at the lower central                
          part" (column 3, lines 36 and 37), which is illustrated in Figure           


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007