Appeal No. 1996-3491
Application 08/213,347
We will not sustain either of these rejections.
Appellants essentially concede that prior art workers have
utilized temperature differentials as an indication of the
occurrence of afterburning and that the value of a temperature
differential ()T) has been controlled by increasing or
decreasing the total amount of oxygen or air input to a dense
catalyst bed in a regenerator section. See the specification
at page
4. Appellants’ characterize the prior art use of a
temperature differential control as involving the regulation
of the rate of injection of air to increase the oxygen
concentration in a regeneration zone (appeal brief, pages 9
and 10). On the other hand, the invention as claimed uses a
temperature differential to increase the concentration of
oxygen in a stream of air that is fed into the regeneration
zone. See Figure 1 of the application wherein system
controller 122 controls flow valves 123 and 124 of oxygen
supply line 125 for increasing the oxygen concentration in air
streams 115 and 113 prior to the introduction of the air into
the regenerator section. As argued by appellants and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007