Appeal No. 2000-1983
Application No. 08/990,038
Appellants argue that the “thin liquid film-based operating
principle specified in claim 1 is fundamentally different from
the conventional spray-based operating principal taught by
Grantham and Hibshman” [principal brief--page 7].
We agree with appellants.
Independent claim 1 clearly calls, inter alia, for a means
for stripping the liquid from the liquid inlet means “to form a
thin liquid film.” The examiner admits that Grantham fails to
disclose such and also admits that Grantham discloses a
fiberglass main body [column 3, line 8, of Grantham confirms
this]. Although the examiner relies on Hibshman for this
teaching, the cited portion of Hibshman merely states that
The liquid is forced toward the wall 3 of the vessel by
centrifugal force and collects on the wall. Because of
the high velocity of the vapor, it collects along the
upper portion of the wall 3 from which point it is
withdrawn from the vessel by means of the liquid outlet
13.
Thus, even though Hibshman does not explicitly disclose the
claimed “thin liquid film,” the examiner contends that since
liquid forms on the cyclone wall, this “necessarily” leads to
stripping. We find no apparent rationale for making this leap
from liquid collecting on the wall in Hibshman to “necessarily”
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007