Appeal No. 1997-0664
Application No. 08/280,945
thorough treatment of all the issues, we find ourselves in
agreement with the appellants that the subject matter of the
appealed claims would not have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103 over the applied prior art references. Accordingly, we
reverse.
The examiner correctly summarizes the teachings of
Holley, the principal prior art reference, as follows:
Holley et al disclose a method for producing pre
metallic oxides by dissolving the metal or oxide in
heated dilute hydrochloric acid to form metallic
chloride in a water solution (which solution may
instead, be a waste product from a steel strip
pickling line) (note abstract). The solution is
passed to a throat venturi scrubber. The venturi
acts as a heat exchanger to extract heat from the
hot off gas stream coming from the reaction zone
(note column 3, lines
3-10). The gas leaves the venturi scrubber and goes
to the adiabatic absorber. The concentrated
solution is sprayed into the reaction zone by using
the bi-fluid nozzles 23. The thermal decomposition
of ferrous and ferric chloride is accomplished by
atomizing the concentrated metallic solution into
small droplets, in the presence of oxygen and water
vapor. The heat required to vaporize the water and
thermally decompose the metal chloride can be
provided directly by introducing the products of
combustion into the reaction chamber or roaster
(i.e. spray roasting reactor as required in the
instant claim 4) at a temperature of about 2500EF
(1371EC). The combustion gas is generated by burning
a gaseous oil or fuel (note column 3, lines 17-42).
[Answer, pp. 3-4.]
The examiner also correctly determines that Holley’s
process differs from the process of the appealed claims in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007