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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007