Appeal No. 1996-4174 Page 6
Application No. 08/134,204
Here, Binning clearly discloses that the long reactor
coil (18) has a diameter of "about two inches" (column 3,
lines 11-17) and a length of about one mile (column 4, lines
26-29). Binning further exemplifies a particular elongated
tubular reactor construction with "an inside diameter of 1.8
inches" (column 7, lines 6-8). In light of the above, it is
our view that the examiner has reasonably established that
Binning discloses an apparatus including an elongated tubular
reactor with a
substantially constant diameter that corresponds to and is
encompassed by the appealed claims herein.
We do not find appellants' contentions regarding Binning
suggesting abrupt bends to be entirely consistent with the
disclosure of Binning in that Binning merely requires an
elongated coiled tubular reactor construction, not abrupt
bends. Moreover, appellants have not substantiated their view
that the coiled reactor of Binning will incorporate
significant internal diameter changes as a result of such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007