Appeal No. 1997-0793
Application 08/107,633
stream from the separator is divided into a first portion
which is applied to the reactor and a second portion which is
burned to produce flue gases. Roetheli, however, teaches that
the hot particulate stream from the gas generator is largely
free from carbon, and that after this stream passes through
the superheating chamber, part of it is discarded as ash (col.
3, lines 7-21). Thus, it does not reasonably appear that the
reference would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, burning these particulates to produce flue
gas. The examiner points out that claim 2, and claim 3 which
depends therefrom, require preheating air, but does not
explain why the applied prior art would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, burning a portion of
Roetheli’s hot particulate stream. Consequently, we reverse
the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
DECISION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 10
over Roetheli taken with Friedman, Reh and Howard, and the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 4 over these
references, further taken with Barr, are affirmed. The
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2 and 3 over
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007