Appeal No. 1999-2204 Page 5
Application No. 08/951,003
either of Dunn and Gleason, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to add them to the Black apparatus. Answer, pages 5 and 6.
The appellants counter with two major arguments. With regard to claim 1, they
assert that Black does not disclose or teach that the longitudinal adjutage (slot) through
which the charged gas flows to a scrubbing chamber opens “directly into said scrubbing
chamber” such that the scrubbing mixing flow exiting therefrom is “completely unobstructed
within said scrubbing chamber between said longitudinal adjutage and said splitter,” and
that this deficiency is not overcome by considering Dunn or Gleason. As for claim 14, it is
the appellants’ view that the applied references fail to disclose or teach “ejecting means for
ejecting scrubbing water into said gas inlet means to prewet the continuous flow of
charged gas as said charged gas passes through said inlet means.”
Claim 1 recites a scrubbing chamber that is defined by a side wall and a bottom
plate perpendicular thereto, with a longitudinal adjutage projecting from the bottom plate
into the scrubbing chamber, and a splitter situated in the scrubbing chamber spaced apart
and downstream from the adjutage and positioned perpendicularly to the flow of charged
gas. The claim further requires, as mentioned above, that the adjutage opens directly into
the scrubbing chamber so that the flow issuing therefrom is completely unobstructed within
the scrubbing chamber. The apparatus disclosed by Black is for the same purpose as the
appellants’ invention and has a number of commonalities of construction, including a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007