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