Appeal No. 97-2914
Application No. 08/448,060
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 Cyran, Steag, and appellants= Aadmission@ 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 teachings of Steag and the Aadmission@ of appellants.
The examiner relies upon Steag to show means for removal of SO3 from flue gas by dry
gas cleansing (p. 2, lines 4-13).
b. The examiner further relies upon appellants= Aadmission@ as suggesting the
desirability of removing substantially all the SO3 from the flue gas.
The examiner points to appellants= Aadmission@ at p. 5, lines 3 and 4, of the
specification that A(i)t is well-known in the pollution control field that a
wet scrubber does not effectively remove SO3 from flue gas.@
ii. The examiner further notes that SO3 is corrosive.
In light of the Aadmission@ and the corrosiveness of SO3, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious Ato remove the corrosive
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007