Appeal No. 95-4838
Application No. 08/131,643
will treat the claims as standing or falling separately. 37
CFR § 192(c)(5)(1994).
We have carefully considered the record before us and the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner. Based
thereon, we shall sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 7,
10 through 15 and 20 through 21. We shall not sustain the
rejection of claims 8, 9, 16 through 19 and 22.
The examiner, in his rejection, properly relies on the
admitted prior art of appellants, Figure 1 and the
accompanying explanation, page 3, lines 10-11 and line 17
through page 4 for disclosure of appellants’ claimed device
other than the submicron filter assembly. As explained
therein, an exhaust destruction unit pulls the exhausted gases
into the unit and oxidizes them at high temperatures up to
800 C. The oxidized gases are thereafter directed to ano
exhaust duct and vented to the air. As a result submicron
particles pass through the unit and vent directly into the
air. As to additional features required by claims 2 through 5
and 12 through 13, the features claimed therein are likewise
disclosed in Figure 1 and the accompanying explanation in
appellants’ specification, pages 3 and 4. Disclosed therein
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007