Appeal No. 1999-0772
Application No. 08/600,165
calcining steps as well as removal of SO 2 exhaust gas
for the manufacture of sulfuric acid are all known
steps and temperature ranges for the Muller-Kuhne
process...[T]he improvement claimed by appellants over
the prior art would appear to be the use of a waste
raw material as a starting material for environmental
as well as economic cost saving considerations. It
would appear that the rest of appellants' process is
merely application of the known Muller-Kuhne
process...
(Id. at pages 4-5; underscoring added.) Additionally, the
examiner holds: "[I]t is the examiner's position that the choice
of a specific fuel be it a liquid or solid or mixture thereof is
conventionally done in the art for rotary kilns which are
routinely used in the Muller-Kuhne process." (Id. at page 6;
underscoring added.)
On the other hand, the appellants urge:
[N]othing in Herzog describes, suggests or infers
burning a specifically formulated mix of raw and
residual powder components in a mutually supportive
flame generated from a fuel mix comprising liquid and
solid residual materials. There is nothing in Herzog
that describes, suggests, or remotely infers the
invention as claimed by Applicant.
(Appeal brief, page 17.) The appellants further point out that
"the Examiner holds, without any relevant art, that those
features absent in Herzog 'would appear' to be obvious." (Reply
brief, page 2.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007