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.
OPINION
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withdrawn.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vapor product stream be withdrawn through a horizontally upwardly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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007