Appeal No. 1997-1551
Application No. 08/235,597
the in-situ injection of limestone (CaCO3) directly into the furnace. Contrary to
that description, the presently claimed invention includes a particulate collection
means which would work against the process described in Kohl by intercepting
the lime particles after they leave the furnace and before they enter the wet
scrubber. Kohl also discounts the in-situ process because of Anumerous
operational problems@ in the same paragraph.
Kohl discloses the Aconcept of combining fly ash particulate removal with the SO2
removal scrubber@ as offering Aa very large potential for cost savings by
eliminating the need for an electrostatic precipitator or baghouse@, but Kohl
also lists several drawbacks to that concept (para. Bridging pp. 307 and 309).
In any case, the presently claimed invention captures the fly ash in
the particulate collection means before it reaches the dry sorbent and wet
scrubber stages.
Kohl does not teach that the dry sorbent particles are larger than 1.0 micron.
The Examiner cites appellants= Aadmission@, Steag, and Peterson as secondary references to account
for the differences between Kohl and the claimed invention.
The examiner addresses the claimed removal of substantially all the SO3 from the flue gas with
the Aadmission@ of appellants and the teachings of Peterson.
The examiner relies upon appellants= Aadmission@ as suggesting the desirability of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007