Appeal No. 96-0936
Application 08/230,173
the semicircular surface 30 and a predominantly
cracked product vapor phase 45. The vapor phase 45
is spaced from the semicircular surface 30 by the
presence of the predominantly catalyst phase 40.
The semicircular centrifugal separator 25 is in flow
communication with the reactor vessel 100 and
therefore the predominantly cracked product vapor
phase 45 is free to enter the vapor space 159 below
the separator in flow communication with the vapor
space 160 above the separator.
Scoop 55 separates the predominantly catalyst
phase 40 by means of a shave edge 56 located
proximate to the semi circular surface 30. The
shave edge 56 catches predominantly catalyst phase
40 moving generally in contact with and proximate to
the semicircular surface 30. The scoop directs the
predominantly catalyst phase 40 away from the
reactor vessel center line 120; which may or may not
be coincident with the riser reactor center line
121, and deposits it adjacent the reactor vessel
wall 110 where it continues to flow downward under
the force of gravity to a stripping zone 300 [column
2, line 42, through column 3, line 8].
The examiner's reliance on this prior art disclosure to
support the appealed rejection (see pages 4 through 6 in the
answer) is unsound.
To begin with, Castagnos does not teach, and would not
have suggested, an apparatus meeting the limitations in claim
8 requiring fluid conveying arms which extend substantially
horizontally outward from the vertical axis of the fluid riser
inlet conduit. The examiner's determination that these
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007