Appeal No. 1996-3162
Application 08/227,897
filed for: (a) the recitation in claim 2 that (emphasis
added) "said solid residue is continuously transferred out of
said primary oxidation chamber" (only periodic transfer is
disclosed, see specification, page 13, lines 3 and 22), and
(b) the recitation in claim 3 that "said solid residue is
continuously transferred to a device to recover the thermal
energy therein." This problem appears to have arisen when, in
the amendment filed on November 18, 1991, appellants changed
the expression "gasified solid organic materials are" in
claims 2 and 3 to --solid residue is--.
(B) Claim 14 is rejected for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. The scope of this claim is
indefinite, because the recitation therein that the grate is
periodically actuated to remove non-combustible solid residue
from the primary oxidation chamber is inconsistent with the
recitation in parent claim 2 that the solid residue is
continuously transferred out of the primary oxidation chamber.
Conclusion
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007