Appeal No. 96-1165
Application 08/060,422
as a fluid” (brief: p. 31). The examiner relies on the teachings of Wheelock which discloses at col. 4, lines
42-49 that
[b]ecause of the continuous circulation of materials within the fluidized bed reactor, the
occurance of exothermic reactions in another portion of the bed, [sic] does not lead to
undue fluctuations in the bed temperature. On the contrary, the temperature throughout
the fluidized bed can be controlled to relatively stable temperature, which favors the
desired reactions and avoids sintering.
The examiner urges that “there is nothing in appealed claims 10 or 15 which set forth a patentable
distinction between the circulating fluidized bed of the appealed claims ... and that of the Wheelock patent
in a fashion that would impart patentable merit to the appealed claims” (answer: p. 12). We are in
agreement with the examiner.
Claim 10 requires feeding the metal sulfate and reducing agent including carbon monoxide into a
first reactor which is a circulating fluidized bed reactor and contacting the sulfate with the reducing agent
at a temperature and for a period of time to effect reduction of the sulfate to a metal sulfide, removing the
product from the first reactor and separating the sulfide from the waste by-products of the reducing
reaction. Claim 15 requires feeding the sulfide and an oxidizing agent into a second reactor which is a
circulating fluidized bed reactor, contacting the sulfide and oxidizing
agent at a temperature and for a period of time to effect oxidation of the sulfide to a metal oxide and sulfur
dioxide, and then removing and separating sulfur dioxide from the metal oxide. The claims do not set forth3
a patentable distinction between the appellant’s circulating fluidized bed and that disclosed by Wheelock.
3We note that in claim 11, the term “sulfur” in the third line of step (c) is in error and should be --sulfide--.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007