Appeal No. 2000-1300
Application 08/853,581
As observed by appellants (brief, page 4), the arrangement
in Chapman is generally the type of system over which the
claimed invention is an improvement, since a system like that of
Chapman produces less than satisfactory results because it is
difficult or impossible to accurately adjust the flow rate of
gases at high pressures (e.g., at 32 therein) to provide a gas
mixture of the desired composition, due to the compressibility
of the gases.
Further, like appellants, we consider that Chapman and
McLoughlin belong to completely disparate technologies and that
one seeking to solve a problem in the area of mixing high
pressure gases to attain a desired composition of gases, as in
Chapman and the present application, would not have been
inclined to look to the art of mixing foam or other fire
fighting chemicals with a water stream used in fighting fires.
In this regard, we also share appellants’ view that there is no
disclosure whatsoever in McLoughlin of analyzing a mixture
(whether it be a gas mixture or a liquid mixture) and then
adjusting the flow rate of a liquid in response to the analysis
to correct a deviation of the concentration of the mixture from
a desired concentration. McLoughlin uses total flow rate to
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007