Appeal No. 1997-0793
Application 08/107,633
the carbonization chamber and gas generator are fluidized beds
(reply brief, page 2). Roetheli, however, teaches that the
carbonization chamber, combustion chamber and gas generator
all have fluidized beds (col. 6, lines 9-11, 47-48 and 55-57;
col. 10, lines 6-13).
For the above reasons we conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, the method recited in
appellant’s claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 4
The examiner argues that Barr discloses (col. 7, lines 6-
19) recycle ratios similar to those recited in appellant’s
claim 4 (answer, page 5). Because this argument is reasonable
and appellant has not challenged it, we accept it as fact.
See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3, 140 USPQ 235, 236
n.3 (CCPA 1964). For this reason and because appellant
provides no substantive argument regarding the rejection of
claim 4, we affirm the rejection of that claim.
Claims 2 and 3
Appellant’s claim 2 requires that the hot particulate
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007