Ex parte BIELAWSKI et al. - Page 3

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

          the particular problem with which the applicant was involved.               
          In re Clay, 966 F.2d, 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed.                  
          Cir. 1992).  In the present case it is evident that Hilger                  
          does not satisfy criterion (1), since it relates to the field               
          of refrigeration, while appellant’s field of endeavor is the                
          removal of contaminants.  As for criterion (2), the examiner                
          asserts that Hilger is analogous because any device which                   
          contacts a gas with a liquid (such as Hilger’s sprays 14) is                
          broadly a wet scrubber, “as such liquid will always cool/heat               
          and remove pollutants from the gaseous feed stream” (answer,                
          page 6).  However, the gas (air) being sprayed in Hilger is                 
          not contaminated, and, as disclosed by Hilger at page 2, lines              
          16 to 27, the purpose of the sprays 14 is to spray brine to                 
          aid in the refrigeration process.  Thus, since Hilger is not                
          concerned with appellants’ particular problem, it is                        
          nonanalogous art and will not be considered in evaluating the               
          merits of the rejection.                                                    
               In the system and method disclosed by Berman, exhaust gas              
          enters the bottom of the housing at 25, and passes                          
          sequentially through a counter-current spray chamber 12, a                  


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007