Ex parte LEE - Page 8




                     Appeal No. 95-2741                                                                                                                                                
                     Application 08/008,120                                                                                                                                            


                     Metals Corporation of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985);                                                                   
                     Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956, 220 USPQ 592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Applicant                                                                    
                     asserts that the subject matter of Claim 1 is distinguishable from Austin because Austin teaches the use of                                                       
                     a preliminary quench liquid to cool the effluent prior to introduction into the heat exchangers.   Applicant               20                                     
                     appears to assert that Claim 1 does not permit the use of a preliminary quench fluid prior to the introduction                                                    
                     of the effluent into the heat exchanger.  Thus, applicant argues:                                                                                                 


                                           Applicant has discovered a process for producing carbon blacks where                                                                        
                                           pyrolysis is stopped not by a quench, but by means of a lined wall heat                                                                     
                                           exchanger.  As a result, there is no need to introduce any quench into the                                                                  
                                           effluent and, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, no                                                                        
                                           quenching fluid is injected into the effluent.  However, if for economic                                                                    
                                           reasons it is desired to cool the effluent prior to the point at which the                                                                  
                                           effluent enters the lined wall heat exchanger, a reduced amount of                                                                          
                                           quenching fluid, relative to the amount of quenching fluid utilized in a                                                                    
                                           conventional process to stop pyrolysis, may be injected into the effluent.                                                                  
                                           Claim 2 is directed to this embodiment of the present invention.                           [21]                                             

                                The examiner construes claim 1 to be open to inclusion of other unspecified process steps including                                                    
                     the use of a quench fluid prior to the entry of the effluent into the lined wall heat exchanger.                                    22                            
                                Claim 1 does not expressly recite the use of a quench liquid prior to the introduction of the effluent                                                 
                     into the lined wall heat exchanger.  The preamble of claim 1, however, uses the open word  “comprising.”                                                          
                     The use of the word opens the claim to the inclusion of additional unspecified steps.  Moleculon Research                                                         
                     Corp. v.  CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986);  In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686,                                                              

                                20  Appeal Brief, page 7, second paragraph.                                                                                                            
                                21  Appeal Brief, paragraph bridging pages 7-8.                                                                                                        
                                22  Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-5.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                          8                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007