Appeal No. 96-1003
Application No. 08/115,791
from reference Figure 1 that the recycle is introduced at a
point above, not below, the point of introduction of the feed
carbonaceous material. Also, unlike the process of Patel,
Anwer discloses entry of oxygen both above and below the point
of introduction of the carbonaceous material. Patel '758, the
final secondary reference, fails to teach the employment of
circulating inert material in the gasification method.
Accordingly, it is our view that impermissible hindsight
is necessary to pick and choose from among the disclosures of
the secondary references in order to modify the gasification
process of Patel so that it meets the requirements of the
claimed gasification method.
We recognize that appellant took an appeal in the great
grandparent application of the present application (U.S.
Application No. 06/640,526, filed August 14, 1984). In a
decision dated November 29, 1989 (Appeal No. 88-0003), the
Board affirmed the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims
over the same prior art presently applied, with the exception
of Patel '758. However, the present claims on appeal are
substantially different than the appealed claims in the prior
appeal, e.g., the appealed claims in the great grandparent
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007