Appeal No. 1997-1551
Application No. 08/235,597
reacting the wet reagent with the SO2 in the wet scrubber means to remove SO2 from
the substantially SO3-free flue gas conveyed to the wet scrubber means.3
The references relied upon the examiner are:
Peterson et al. (Peterson), APilot-Scale Evaluation of Sorbent Injection to Remove SO3 and HCl@,
Proceedings: 1991 SO2 Control Symposium (December 2-3, 1991), pp. 6A-1 to 6A-22.
Kohl et al. (Kohl), Gas Purification, 4th ed., Gulf Publishing Company (1985), pp. 302, 303, and 306-
320.
British Patent (Steag) 1,589,999 May 28, 1981
Rejections
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103. With respect to claim 1, the examiner
relies upon Kohl, Steag, and appellants= admission as evidence of obviousness.
With respect to claims 1-6, the examiner relies upon Kohl, Steag, appellant=s
admission, and Peterson as evidence of obviousness.1 We reverse both grounds of
rejection and institute new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. ' 1.196(b).
The claims at issue
Claim 1, representative of the claims on appeal, is directed to a method of removing SO3 and SO3 from
a flue gas produced by burning fossil fuel comprising the steps summarized as follows:
providing flue gas containing SO3 and SO3 produced by burning fossil fuel;
sending the flue gas to particulate collection means for collecting and removing particles from the
flue gas to produce a partially cleaned flue gas;
injecting dry sorbent into the partially cleaned flue gas, wherein
3 Claim 1 is reproduced here as it appears in the April 25, 1996 Amendment After Final Rejection, which
was approved by the examiner in the May 6, 1996 Advisory Action.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007