Appeal No. 1998-2248
Application No. 08/552,407
single stage separation is accomplished on the output from the
fluidized bed chlorinator with the underflow from a
hydrocyclone recycled to the chlorination process (Brief, pages
2-3). A copy of illustrative claims 1 and 9 is attached as an2
Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Oppegaard et al. (Oppegaard) 3,050,362 Aug. 21, 1962
Hildreth 3,227,545 Jan. 4, 1996
Paige et al. (Paige), “Physical Beneficiation of Titanium Plant
Solid Wastes: Recovery of Titanium Minerals and Coke,” Bureau
of Mines Report of Investigations, pp. 1-23 (1982).
Claims 1 and 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Paige (Answer, page 4). Claims 2, 9 and 11-
16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Paige in view of Hildreth (Answer, pages 8 and 10). Claims 3 3
and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
2All citations to the Brief refer to the substitute Brief
dated Dec. 22, 1997, Paper No. 16.
3In the interest of judicial economy, we have grouped the
rejections of claim 2 and claims 9 and 11-16 together since
these claims were rejected under section 103 over the same
combination of references. We do likewise for the rejections
of claims 3 and 10 infra.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007