Appeal No. 1996-3162
Application 08/227,897
Since appellants have not presented any argument as
to part (ii) in their brief, it will be summarily sustained.
Turning to part (i), the language of claim 1 with
which this part is concerned reads:
establishing a gaseous effluent flow
path within said primary oxidation chamber
whereby a portion of said gaseous effluent
repeatedly flows in a recirculating upward
and downward direction through said heated
solid organic
materials to enhance continuous oxidation
of said solid organic materials, and a
further portion of said gaseous effluent
flow is advanced in a direction outward
from said primary oxidation chamber.
The basis of the rejection, as stated on page 4 of the
examiner's answer, is that this language
has no clear meaning and is not enabled by
the original disclosure. In this regard
note page 10, line 11 of the specification
indicates the air appears "to repeatedly
flow up and down". There is no disclosure
to indicate that the gaseous effluent flow
comprises separate portions which are
caused to flow as claimed. Indeed, it is
not clear how one skilled in the art could
ensure that such a flow pattern was
duplicated. How, does one take care of the
essential buildup of the portion in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007