Appeal No. 96-1165
Application 08/060,422
Both appellant and Wheelock seek to continuously move solids in the reactor from one portion of the bed
to another to eventually removing the solids from the reactor. See pipe or conduit 28 in Wheelock wherein
calcium oxide is removed from the fluidized bed. In addition, Gorin discloses that the solids in reactors 42
and 44, which reactors appear to be similar to appellant’s first and second reactors, are maintained in a
fluidized state (col. 3, lines 64-66; col. 4, lines 10-14). We see no structural difference between what is
illustrated in appellant’s figure for reactors 16 and 28 and Gorin’s reactors 42 and 44 illustrated in Fig. 2
of Gorin. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in appellant’s argument.
Appellant argues that claims 8 and 32 are separately patentable because the prior art does not
teach or suggest the steps or means required by claims 8 and 32, respectively. Claim 8 is a process claim
and requires incinerating the waste by-products from the reduction of the sulfate in the first reactor and
using the heat produced thereby to heat the sulfate feed to the first reactor. Claim 32 is an apparatus claim
and requires a means for incinerating the waste by-products produced in the first reactor and heating the
sulfate feed to the first reactor. The examiner maintains on pages 13 and 14 of the answer that
[t]he Gorin patent clearly renders obvious the need to heat his metal sulfate reducing zone
to a temperature effective for the reduction of the metal sulfates into metal sulfides and
accomplishes this by the combustion of hydrocarbonacious [sic, hydrocarbonaceous] fuel
to provide the necessary heat, which is not seen to patentably distinguish from incinerating
the waste by-products from the reduction step to provide the necessary heat for the sulfate
reduction as set forth in appealed claim 8 in as much as [sic, inasmuch as] there is nothing
in appealed claim 8 to exclude the “hydrocarbonacious [sic, hydrocarbonaceous] solids”
of the Gorin patent ... from the “waste by-products” of appealed claim 8 or the “combus-
tion” of said hydrocarbonacious [sic, hydrocarbonaceous] solids as set forth in col. 2, lines
34-42 of Gorin from the “incineration” set forth in appealed claim 8 nor is there anything
in appealed claim 8 which sets forth that the incineration is conducted in a vessel that is
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007