Appeal No. 98-1640
Application 08/535,850
determination which follows.
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11. It
follows that the rejection of claims 12 through 17, and 19 is
likewise affirmed, since these claims stand or fall with claim
11, as earlier indicated.
At the outset, we point out that, as disclosed by
appellants (specification, page 7), the openings in the first
nozzle tip are for the passage of the steam out of the inner
steam conduit and into the heavy petroleum hydrocarbon passing
through the outer heavy petroleum hydrocarbon conduit. This
results in a “mixture” of steam and heavy hydrocarbon. The
angle of steam flow, relative to the longitudinal axis of the
steam conduit, depends on the usage of the nozzles
(specification, page 7). The function of the second nozzle tip
is for the passage of the “mixture” of steam and heavy
petroleum hydrocarbon out of the feed nozzle to substantially
uniformly atomize the “mixture” of steam and heavy petroleum
hydrocarbon into a catalytic cracking reactor riser. The
distance the outlet end of the second nozzle tip extends
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007