Appeal No. 1996-3433
Application No. 08/198,955
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Aghnides 2,633,343 Mar. 31,
1953
Bond et al. (Bond) 4,123,220 Oct. 31,
1978
Michel 4,492,562 Jan. 8,
1985
As evidence of nonobviousness, appellant relies on the
following reference:
Shumaker 3,782,884 Jan. 1,
1974 Claims 8 through 10 and 13 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Bond, Michel and Aghnides.
We reverse.
The claimed subject matter is directed to an apparatus
comprising an acid gas burner and a processing reactor. See
claim 8. It is identical to that described in Bond, except
that it employs a single continuous annular slot useful for
providing an annular hydrogen sulfide gas flow, rather than
concentric circular rows of nozzle apertures for supplying
hydrogen sulfide gas jets. See Specification, page 4. It is
said to be an improvement over that described in Bond in that
(Specification, pages 3 and 4):
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007