Appeal No. 97-2914
Application No. 08/448,060
Kohl does not disclose means specifically for removing substantially all the SO3 from the flue
gas.
Kohl discusses SO3 formation at pp. 302 and 303, but its formation is attributed to
process condition variables such as air/fuel ratios, fuel composition,
temperature, etc.
Kohl addresses means for removing SO2 elsewhere and the examiner points to no
teaching in Kohl on means for the actual removal of SO3 in particular from a flue
gas.
Kohl does not describe means for injecting dry sorbent particles into the flue gas after
particulate collection and before wet scrubbing, so that some of the dry sorbent
particles react with and remove substantially all the SO3 in the flue gas, and so that the
unreacted dry sorbent particles
form a wet reagent to remove SO2 from the substantially SO3-free flue gas during wet
scrubbing.
Kohl describes a Adry plus wet@ means at p. 307, para. 4, but that means involves 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 means because of Anumerous
operational problems@ in the same paragraph.
Kohl discloses the Aconcept of combining fly ash particulate removal with the SO2
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007