Appeal No. 1999-2204 Page 7
Application No. 08/951,003
charged gas in the Black system flows from the adjutage into the chimney and then into the
scrubbing chamber, rather than directly into the scrubbing chamber, it does not meet this
term of the claim or that which requires that the flow be completely unobstructed within the
scrubbing chamber between the adjutage and the splitter. These deficiencies are not
cured by further considering the teachings of Dunn or Gleason.
The combined teachings of Black and Dunn, or Black and Gleason, fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent
claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection. It follows that we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3 and 8-11, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 4-6, which also depend from claim 1, stand rejected on the basis the
references applied against claim 1 taken further in view of Azerb, which was cited by the
examiner for its showing of the adjutage shape recited in these claims. Be that as it may,
Azerb does not overcome the problems with the rejection of claim 1 that is discussed
above. The rejection of claims 4-6 is not sustained.
Claim 12 and 13 depend from claim 1, and stand rejected over the references
applied against claim 1, plus any of Bergman, Jorgensen, Stabber or Haselden. The latter
four references are cited with respect to the requirements added by claim 12 and 13, but
do not alleviate the problems with claim 1. The rejection of claims 12 and 13 is not
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007