Ex parte BIELAWSKI et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-0387                                                        
          Application 08/566,192                                                      


               The appealed claims are drawn to a system (claims 1, 2,                
          10 and 11) or method (claims 7, 8 and 12) for removing                      
          contaminants from a flue gas, and are reproduced in Appendix A              
          of appellants’ brief.                                                       
               The references applied in the final rejection are:                     
          Hilger                   1,861,158                May  31, 1932             
          Berman                   3,473,298                Oct. 21, 1969             
          Warner                   4,705,101                Nov. 10, 1987             
          Marchand et al (Marchand)  5,080,696              Jan. 14, 1992             
               The claims on appeal stand finally rejected under 35 USC               
           103(a) as unpatentable over the following combinations of                 
          references:                                                                 
          (1) Claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Berman in view of Marchand and                    
          Hilger;                                                                     
          (2) Claims 10 to 12, Berman in view of Marchand, Hilger and                 
          Warner.                                                                     
          Rejection (1)                                                               
               We will first consider appellants’ contention (brief,                  
          page 14) that Hilger is nonanalogous art.                                   
               A reference is analogous art if it satisfies one of two                
          criteria: (1) it is from the same field of endeavor as that of              
          the applicant, or (2) if not, it is reasonably pertinent to                 

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007