Appeal No. 96-0112
Application 07/877,913
desire for obtaining the educting or aspirating effect. The examiner does not provide any evidence or
scientific reasoning to indicate that the claimed injection technique would have been suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 16, 17, 19
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
(1) The rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the disclosure of Owen is affirmed; and
(2) The rejection of claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
disclosure of Owen is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
OTHER ISSUES
While we have reversed the examiner's stated rejection of claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20, both the
examiner and appellants should carefully consider the following issues before the claims we have
reversed are allowed to issue.
In the first instance, in ¶3. of Mr. Adornato's declaration he states:
The model, e.g., response of the FCC riser reactor to quench at different elevations
in the riser is believed reliable because it predicts results which are consistent with three
commercial FCC units. Thus, it is a proven, commercially used tool.
The tenor of this statement could have two possible meanings. The paragraph could be construed to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007