Appeal No. 97-2912
Application No. 08/291,768
However, the May reference does not describe each and every
element of the claimed subject matter. Specifically, we find
that the May reference does not describe:
said heating gas circuit having a combustion chamber
communicating with said carbonization drum, said
combustion chamber receiving and combusting a
partial flow of the carbonization gas from the
carbonization drum, thereby generating a heating
gas, and delivering the heating gas to the
carbonization drum;
In other words, the device described in the May reference does
not provide a heating gas circuit which is designed to employ
carbonization gas directly in the heating of a carbonization
drum and to provide only a partial flow of the carbonization
gas to the combustion chamber. Rather, it employs a heating
gas circuit which is designed to use indirectly heated air or
inert gases to heat a carbonization drum (see the paragraph
bridging pages 6 and 7) and is designed to send the entire
carbonization gas to a combustion chamber 8 (see page 6).
Accordingly, we agree with appellants that the May reference
does not anticipate the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We also observe that the examiner relies on the
Kozmiensky reference, in addition to the May reference, to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007