Appeal No. 1999-1738 Page 2
Application No. 08/854,516
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method of rapidly cooling a regenerative thermal
oxidizer. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim
1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Gross et al. (Gross) 5,101,741 Apr. 7, 1992
Houston 5,417,927 May 23, 1995
Klobucar et al. (Klobucar) 5,538,420 Jul. 23, 1996
The following rejections stand before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Houston.
2. Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gross.
3. Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Klobucar.
Reference is made to the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 9 and 11) and the answer
(Paper No. 10) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007